Re: Fluorophore bleaching by excitation light sources

Posted by Ignatius, Mike on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Fluorophore-bleaching-by-excitation-light-sources-tp592521p592530.html

Search the CONFOCAL archive at http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Pulsed Illumination:   Prior to Stefan Hell's truly elegant paper this paper discussed making a cheaper version of pulsed diode to reduce photo-fading/toxicity.
 
Stroboscopic illumination using light-emitting diodes reduces phototoxicity in fluorescence cell imaging.
by Nishigaki T, Wood CD, Shiba K, Baba SA, Darszon A. in <A href="javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'Biotechniques.');">Biotechniques. 2006 Aug;41(2):191-7.
 
The effects weren't as dramatic, but the benefits were very clear and at a fraction of the cost. 
 
It is worth noting as well that the spinning discs, fast scanners, fast galvos, etc, effectively deliver a decent form of the T-Relaxation light form that Dr. Hell recommends in his paper. 
 
As for UV leak, J. Nordberg at U Mass had an interesting ASCB abstract/poster in 2006.  UV was effecting his experiments, so he looked at the amount of leak.  My apologies to Dr. Nordberg if I misrepresent his findings, but my notes say that i) photon flux from UV light vs tungsten was 30,000 times greater.  (Any of us failing to have filter block in place when we look through the eye pieces with an Hg lamp on know this personally.)  Still from my notes, so these numbers need verification from the pros out there, but standard filters block 99% or 2 orders of magnitude of light while optimized filters can cut another 4 orders more.  I liken this to watching soccer/football under the lights at night - like a tungsten lamp on a slide.  Imagine then if the light was turned up 300 times (30,000 less 99%), this is what the extent of UV leak might look like to our cells.  We don't see it as it is UV, but they (and the dyes) feel it.
 
Mike Ignatius,
 
Molecular Probes/Invitrogen


From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Knecht
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:56 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Fluorophore bleaching by excitation light sources

Search the CONFOCAL archive at http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal I have used the CoolLED system, and it is not operating in strobe mode.  It is continuous illumination.  The UV question is interesting.  Is there an easy way to test if there is UV leaking through the epi filter set with the mercury burner?  Dave

On Mar 12, 2008, at 4:27 PM, Stanislav Vitha wrote:

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Regarding the difference between LED illumination and Hg lamp -
Perhaps if the illumination is not continuous but is set up for strobe
operation of the LED, this could allow dark state relaxation an prolong
the life of the fluorophore (I am not sure the same would apply to the
life of the cell). - The time between light pulses should be more than one
microscecond.
reference:   
Gerald Donnert, Christian Eggeling & Stefan W Hell: Major signal increase
in fluorescence microscopy through dark-state relaxation. Nature Methods -
4, 81 - 86 (2007)


Stan Vitha

Dr. David Knecht    
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
Co-head Flow Cytometry and Confocal Microscopy Facility
U-3125
91 N. Eagleville Rd.
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT 06269
860-486-2200
860-486-4331 (fax)