Biomedical Engineering Letters

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 339–349 | Cite as

A multiscale Mueller polarimetry module for a stereo zoom microscope

  • Adam Gribble
  • Michael A. Pinkert
  • Jared Westreich
  • Yuming Liu
  • Adib Keikhosravi
  • Mohammadali Khorasani
  • Sharon Nofech-Mozes
  • Kevin W. EliceiriEmail author
  • Alex VitkinEmail author
Original Article


Mueller polarimetry is a quantitative polarized light imaging modality that is capable of label-free visualization of tissue pathology, does not require extensive sample preparation, and is suitable for wide-field tissue analysis. It holds promise for selected applications in biomedicine, but polarimetry systems are often constrained by limited end-user accessibility and/or long-imaging times. In order to address these needs, we designed a multiscale-polarimetry module that easily couples to a commercially available stereo zoom microscope. This paper describes the module design and provides initial polarimetry imaging results from a murine preclinical breast cancer model and human breast cancer samples. The resultant polarimetry module has variable resolution and field of view, is low-cost, and is simple to switch in or out of a commercial microscope. The module can reduce long imaging times by adopting the main imaging approach used in pathology: scanning at low resolution to identify regions of interest, then at high resolution to inspect the regions in detail. Preliminary results show how the system can aid in region of interest identification for pathology, but also highlight that more work is needed to understand how tissue structures of pathological interest appear in Mueller polarimetry images across varying spatial zoom scales.


Mueller matrix polarimetry Multiscale Stereo zoom microscope Module Pathology Label-free imaging 



The authors thanks David Inman and Dr. Suzanne Ponik of the UW-Madison for providing the murine mammary gland samples. Also, thanks are due to James Jonkman of the Advanced Optical Microscopy Facility (Toronto) for help with the stereo zoom microscope. We acknowledge Drs. Patricia Keely, Jeremy Bredfeldt, Joseph Szulczewski and Andreas Velten of the UW-Madison for useful discussions on the project. Funding is acknowledged from the Morgridge Institute for Research, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (AV) and NIH U54DK104310 (KWE). The authors also thank the UW Translational Research Initiatives in Pathology Laboratory, in part supported by the UW Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and UWCCC Grant P30 CA014520, for use of its facilities and services.


This study was funded by Morgridge Institute for Research (KWE), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (AV) and NIH U54DK104310 (KWE).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Mouse mammary samples were obtained after acquiring approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval at the University of Wisconsin at Madison (WI, USA). The human breast samples were approved under institutional ethics and biosafety approval obtained from Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Informed consent

Sunnybrook REB determined that an informed consent form was not required for this study.


  1. 1.
    Qi J, Elson DS. Mueller polarimetric imaging for surgical and diagnostic applications: a review. J Biophotonics. 2017;10:950–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tata A, Gribble A, Ventura M, Ganguly M, Bluemke E, Ginsberg HJ, et al. Wide-field tissue polarimetry allows efficient localized mass spectrometry imaging of biological tissues. Chem Sci. 2016;7:2162–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ushenko YA, Sidor MI, Bodnar GB, Koval’ GD. Mueller-matrix mapping of optically anisotropic fluorophores of biological tissues in the diagnosis of cancer. Quantum Electron. 2014;44:785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ushenko YA. Laser autofluorescence polarimetry of optically anisotropic structures of biological tissues in cancer diagnostics. Opt Spectrosc. 2015;118:1007–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang J, He H, Wang Y, Huang Y, Li X, He C, et al. Division of focal plane polarimeter-based 3 × 4 Mueller matrix microscope: a potential tool for quick diagnosis of human carcinoma tissues. J Biomed Opt. 2016;21:056002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghosh N, Vitkin IA. Tissue polarimetry: concepts, challenges, applications, and outlook. J Biomed Opt. 2011;16:110801–11080129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krupinski EA, Tillack AA, Richter L, Henderson JT, Bhattacharyya AK, Scott KM, et al. Eye-movement study and human performance using telepathology virtual slides. Implications for medical education and differences with experience. Hum Pathol. 2006;37:1543–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tata A, Woolman M, Ventura M, Bernards N, Ganguly M, Gribble A, et al. Rapid detection of necrosis in breast cancer with desorption electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Sci Rep. 2016;6:35374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woolman M, Gribble A, Bluemke E, Zou J, Ventura M, Bernards N, et al. Optimized mass spectrometry analysis workflow with polarimetric guidance for ex vivo and in situ sampling of biological tissues. Sci Rep. 2017;7:468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Golaraei A, Cisek R, Krouglov S, Navab R, Niu C, Sakashita S, et al. Characterization of collagen in non-small cell lung carcinoma with second harmonic polarization microscopy. Biomed Opt Express. 2014;5:3562–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golaraei A, Kontenis L, Cisek R, Tokarz D, Done SJ, Wilson BC, et al. Changes of collagen ultrastructure in breast cancer tissue determined by second-harmonic generation double Stokes–Mueller polarimetric microscopy. Biomed Opt Express. 2016;7:4054–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Conklin MW, Eickhoff JC, Riching KM, Pehlke CA, Eliceiri KW, Provenzano PP, et al. Aligned collagen is a prognostic signature for survival in human breast carcinoma. Am J Pathol. 2011;178:1221–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li T, Sun L, Miller N, Nicklee T, Woo J, Hulse-Smith L, et al. The association of measured breast tissue characteristics with mammographic density and other risk factors for breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2005;14:343–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beck AH, Sangoi AR, Leung S, Marinelli RJ, Nielsen TO, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Systematic analysis of breast cancer morphology uncovers stromal features associated with survival. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:108ra113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Drifka CR, Loeffler AG, Esquibel CR, Weber SM, Eliceiri KW, Kao WJ. Human pancreatic stellate cells modulate 3D collagen alignment to promote the migration of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cells. Biomed Microdevices. 2016;18:105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Drifka CR, Loeffler AG, Mathewson K, Keikhosravi A, Eickhoff JC, Liu Y, et al. Highly aligned stromal collagen is a negative prognostic factor following pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma resection. Oncotarget. 2016;7:76197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirkpatrick ND, Brewer MA, Utzinger U. Endogenous optical biomarkers of ovarian cancer evaluated with multiphoton microscopy. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomark. 2007;16:2048–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wen B, Campbell KR, Tilbury K, Nadiarnykh O, Brewer MA, Patankar M, et al. 3D texture analysis for classification of second harmonic generation images of human ovarian cancer. Sci Rep. 2016;6:35734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pointer KB, Clark PA, Schroeder AB, Salamat MS, Eliceiri KW, Kuo JS. Association of collagen architecture with glioblastoma patient survival. J Neurosurg. 2017;126:1812–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Campagnola P. Second harmonic generation imaging microscopy: applications to diseases diagnostics. Anal Chem. 2011;83:3224–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lu S-Y, Chipman RA. Interpretation of Mueller matrices based on polar decomposition. J Opt Soc Am A. 1996;13:1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ghosh N, Wood MFG, Li S, Weisel RD, Wilson BC, Li R-K, et al. Mueller matrix decomposition for polarized light assessment of biological tissues. J Biophotonics. 2009;2:145–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ortega-Quijano N, Arce-Diego JL. Mueller matrix differential decomposition. Opt Lett. 2011;36:1942–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gil JJ, José IS, Ossikovski R. Serial-parallel decompositions of Mueller matrices. JOSA A. 2013;30:32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ossikovski R. Differential matrix formalism for depolarizing anisotropic media. Opt Lett. 2011;36:2330–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Martin L, Brun GL, Jeune BL, Pellen F, Rivet S. Analysis of experimental depolarizing Mueller matrices through a hybrid decomposition. Appl Opt. 2015;54:27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kumar S, Purwar H, Ossikovski R, Vitkin IA, Ghosh N. Comparative study of differential matrix and extended polar decomposition formalisms for polarimetric characterization of complex tissue-like turbid media. J Biomed Opt. 2012;17:105006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ghosh N, Wood MFG, Vitkin IA. Influence of the order of the constituent basis matrices on the Mueller matrix decomposition-derived polarization parameters in complex turbid media such as biological tissues. Opt Commun. 2010;283:1200–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jacques SL. Optical properties of biological tissues: a review. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:R37.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tuchin VV. Polarized light interaction with tissues. J Biomed Opt. 2016;21:071114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Layden D, Wood MFG, Vitkin IA. Optimum selection of input polarization states in determining the sample Mueller matrix: a dual photoelastic polarimeter approach. Opt Express. 2012;20:20466–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alali S, Vitkin A. Polarized light imaging in biomedicine: emerging Mueller matrix methodologies for bulk tissue assessment. J Biomed Opt. 2015;20:061104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith MH, Woodruff JB, Howe JD. Beam wander considerations in imaging polarimetry. In: SPIE Polarization: measurement, analysis, and remote Sensing II. 1999; p. 50–5.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yoo TS, Ackerman MJ, Lorensen WE, Schroeder W, Chalana V, Aylward S, et al. Engineering and algorithm design for an image processing API: a technical report on ITK—the Insight Toolkit. Stud Health Technol Inf. 2002;85:586–92.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fantozzi A, Christofori G. Mouse models of breast cancer metastasis. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lin EY, Jones JG, Li P, Zhu L, Whitney KD, Muller WJ, et al. Progression to malignancy in the polyoma middle T oncoprotein mouse breast cancer model provides a reliable model for human diseases. Am J Pathol. 2003;163:2113–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bird DK, Eliceiri KW, Fan C-H, White JG. Simultaneous two-photon spectral and lifetime fluorescence microscopy. Appl Opt. 2004;43:5173–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Provenzano PP, Eliceiri KW, Campbell JM, Inman DR, White JG, Keely PJ. Collagen reorganization at the tumor-stromal interface facilitates local invasion. BMC Med. 2006;4:38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carwile Leroy E. Collagen in the physiology and pathology of connective tissue. Steffan Gay and Edward J. Miller. New York, Gustav Fischer Inc., 1978. 106 pages; illustrated. price: $21.10. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23:134–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bancelin S, Nazac A, Ibrahim BH, Dokládal P, Decencière E, Teig B, et al. Determination of collagen fiber orientation in histological slides using Mueller microscopy and validation by second harmonic generation imaging. Opt Express. 2014;22:22561–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nazac A, Bancelin S, Teig B, Ibrahim BH, Fernandez H, Schanne-Klein M-C, et al. Optimization of Picrosirius red staining protocol to determine collagen fiber orientations in vaginal and uterine cervical tissues by Mueller polarized microscopy. Microsc Res Tech. 2015;78:723–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Keikhosravi A, Liu Y, Drifka C, Woo KM, Verma A, Oldenbourg R, et al. Quantification of collagen organization in histopathology samples using liquid crystal based polarization microscopy. Biomed Opt Express. 2017;8:4243–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ellingsen PG, Aas LMS, Hagen VS, Kumar R, Lilledahl MB, Kildemo M. Mueller matrix three-dimensional directional imaging of collagen fibers. J Biomed Opt. 2014;19:026002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wood MFG, Ghosh N, Wallenburg MA, Li S-H, Weisel RD, Wilson BC, et al. Polarization birefringence measurements for characterizing the myocardium, including healthy, infarcted, and stem-cell-regenerated tissues. J Biomed Opt. 2010;15:047009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Alali S, Wang Y, Vitkin IA. Detecting axial heterogeneity of birefringence in layered turbid media using polarized light imaging. Biomed Opt Express. 2012;3:3250–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dong Y, Qi J, He H, He C, Liu S, Wu J, et al. Quantitatively characterizing the microstructural features of breast ductal carcinoma tissues in different progression stages by Mueller matrix microscope. Biomed Opt Express. 2017;8:3643–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sullivan DC, Obuchowski NA, Kessler LG, Raunig DL, Gatsonis C, Huang EP, et al. Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers. Radiology. 2015;277:813–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ahmad I, Gribble A, Murtza I, Ikram M, Pop M, Vitkin A. Polarization image segmentation of radiofrequency ablated porcine myocardial tissue. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0175173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Komura D, Ishikawa S. Machine learning methods for histopathological image analysis. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2018;16:34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Li X, Liao R, Zhou J, Leung PTY, Yan M, Ma H. Classification of morphologically similar algae and cyanobacteria using Mueller matrix imaging and convolutional neural networks. Appl Opt. 2017;56:6520–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pierangelo A, Manhas S, Benali A, Fallet C, Antonelli M-R, Novikova T, et al. Ex vivo photometric and polarimetric multilayer characterization of human healthy colon by multispectral Mueller imaging. J Biomed Opt. 2012;17:066009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Compain E, Poirier S, Drevillon B. General and self-consistent method for the calibration of polarization modulators, polarimeters, and Mueller-matrix ellipsometers. Appl Opt. 1999;38:3490–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Macias-Romero C, Török P. Eigenvalue calibration methods for polarimetry. J Eur Opt Soc-Rapid Publ. 2012;7:12004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Medical and Biological Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam Gribble
    • 1
  • Michael A. Pinkert
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Jared Westreich
    • 1
  • Yuming Liu
    • 2
  • Adib Keikhosravi
    • 2
    • 4
  • Mohammadali Khorasani
    • 5
  • Sharon Nofech-Mozes
    • 6
  • Kevin W. Eliceiri
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Alex Vitkin
    • 1
    • 7
    • 8
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Medical BiophysicsUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Laboratory for Optical and Computational Instrumentation, Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin at MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medical PhysicsUniversity of Wisconsin at MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Morgridge Institute for ResearchMadisonUSA
  5. 5.General Surgical Oncology ProgramUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Department of Laboratory Medicine and PathobiologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  7. 7.Division of Biophysics and Bioimaging, Princess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  8. 8.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations