Posted by
Armstrong, Brian on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Re-Assessing-phototoxicity-in-live-fluorescence-imaging-tp7587005p7587009.html
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopyPost images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****
Hi Claire, I agree with you and I am sorry but I really do not have a clever solution.
A few thoughts: I always "park the beam" for measuring power from the objective. I don't think other methods make much sense (as you already pointed out).
Fluorescent standards do exist; Argo Light may be one of the better options. There are other less expensive options available as well (i.e., Ted Pella). Kurt Thorn wrote a nice blog on this subject some time ago and you may be able to still read it on-line.
Cheers,
Brian Armstrong PhD
Associate Research Professor
Developmental and Stem Cell Biology
Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases
Director, Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Claire Brown
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:20 AM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: Assessing phototoxicity in live fluorescence imaging
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopyPost images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****
Thank you for this great article and pointing to many great resources.
I wanted to bring up one issue we have had when trying to work on different microscope and compare light density/exposure.
For the CLSM microscopes when we use a power meter at the focal plan the power we measure depends a lot on the scan settings.
If we park the beam as a point we get one power. If we go to a 100x100 pixel array at zoom 1 with a 10x lens the power is different. if we change the scan speed the power is different again. I suspect this is related to how the power meter integrates the light over time and also how sensitive it is spatially across the sensor. We have decide to just quote our power as the power we measure at the power meter with set conditions and we detail those conditions in our materials and methods section of the paper. We try to use a 10x/0.3 planfluar lens with no phase optics if we can.
We have stayed away from trying to calculate the power at the sample because a lot of assumptions have to be made. The assumptions may be different for wide-field versus CLSM versus light sheet versus spinning disk and so on.
We ran into these issues when just trying to repeat measurements on two different confocals from two different manufacturers. It can really get quite complex.
Does anyone have thoughts on this issue? Any cleaver solutions? It is my thought that comparing relative powers on the same instrument is okay but comparing between systems will be very complex.
Ideally, it would be good for the manufacturers to have some kind of laser power measurement in the instrument and software that is always monitored. Even if this is just a relative value to the actual power at the sample it would really improve quantitative microscopy and also help in maintenance and trouble shooting equipment. I'm not sure about others but this kind of a feature would really be a strong selling point for me and the core facilities I manage. In many cases these options are already built into the hardware for the service engineers but are not accessible to the end user.
Sincerely,
Claire
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING-
This message (and any attachments) are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender. (LCP301)
---------------------------------------------------------------------