Advertisement

Comparison of Widefield/Deconvolution and Confocal Microscopy for Three-Dimensional Imaging

  • Peter J. Shaw

Abstract

The biggest limitation inherent in optical microscopy is its lateral spatial resolution, which is determined by the wavelength of the light used and the numerical aperture (NA) of the objective lens. Another important limitation is the resolution in the direction of the optical axis, conventionally called z, which is related to the depth of field. The presence of a finite aperture gives rise to undesirable and rather complicated characteristics in the image. In essence, the depth of field depends on the size of structure or spatial frequency being imaged.

Keywords

Spatial Frequency Focal Plane Point Spread Function Confocal Imaging Optical Section 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Agard, D.A., and Sedat, J.W., 1983, Three-dimensional architecture of a polytene nucleus, Nature 302:676–681.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agard, D.A., Hiraoka, Y., Shaw, P.J., and Sedat, J.W., 1989, Fluorescence microscopy in three dimensions, Methods Cell Biol. 30:353–378.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aikens, R.S., Agard, D.A., and Sedat, J.W., 1989, Solid state imagers for microscopy, Methods Cell Biol. 29:291–313.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beven, A.F., Lee, R., Razaz, M., Leader, D.J., Brown, J.W., and Shaw, P.J., 1996, The organization of ribosomal RNA processing correlates with the distribution of nucleolar snRNAs, J. Cell Sci. 109:1241–1251.Google Scholar
  5. Castleman, K.R., 1979, Digital Image Processing, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  6. Highett, M.I., Rawlins, D.J., and Shaw, P.J., 1993a, Different patterns of rDNA distribution in Pisum sativum nucleoli correlate with different levels of nucleolar activity, J. Cell Sci. 104:843–852.Google Scholar
  7. Highett, M.I., Beven, A.F., and Shaw, P.J., 1993b, Localization of 5S genes and transcripts in Pisum sativum nuclei, J. Cell Sci. 105:1151–1158.Google Scholar
  8. Hiraoka Y., Minden, J.S., Swedlow, J.R., Sedat, J.W., and Agard, D.A., 1989, Focal points for chromosome condensation and decondensation from three-dimensional in vivo time-lapse microscopy, Nature 342:293–296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hiraoka, Y., Sedat, J.W., and Agard, D.A., 1988, The use of a charge-coupled device for quantitative optical microscopy of biological structures, Science 238:36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hiraoka, Y., Sedat, J.W., and Agard, D.A., 1990, Determination of three-dimensional imaging properties of a light microscope system: Partial confocal behavior in epifluorescence microscopy, Biophys. J. 57:325–333.Google Scholar
  11. Inoué, S., 1986, Video Microscopy, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Jansson, P.A., Hunt, R.M., and Plyler, E.K., 1970, Resolution enhancement of spectra, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 60:596–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pawley, J.B., 1994, The sources of noise in three-dimensional microscopical data sets, In: Three-Dimensional Confocal Microscopy: Volume Investigation of Biological Specimens (J.K. Stevens, L.R. Mills, and J.E. Trogadis, eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 48–94.Google Scholar
  14. Pawley, J.B., and Smallcomb, A., 1992, An introduction to practical confocal microscopy: The ultimate form of biological light microscopy? Acta Microsc. 1:58–73.Google Scholar
  15. Petran, M., Hadravsky, M., Egger, M.D., and Galambos, R., 1968, Tandemscanning reflected light microscope, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 58:661–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sandison, D.R., Piston, D.W., and Webb, W.W., 1993, Background rejection and optimization of signal-to-noise in confocal microscopy, In: Three-Dimensional Confocal Microscopy: Volume Investigation of Biological Specimens (J.K. Stevens, L.R. Mills, and J.E. Trogadis, eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 211–230.Google Scholar
  17. Self, S.A., 1983, Focusing of spherical Gaussian beams, Appl. Opt.22:658–661.Google Scholar
  18. Shaw, P.J., 1993, Computer reconstruction in three-dimensional fluorescence microscopy, In: Electronic Light Microscopy (D. Shotton, ed.), Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 211–230.Google Scholar
  19. Shaw, P.J., and Rawlins, D.J., 1991a, Three-dimensional fluorescence microscopy, Prog. Biophys. Molec. Biol. 56:187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shaw, P.J., and Rawlins, D.J., 1991b, The point spread function of a confocal microscope: Its measurement and use in deconvolution of 3D data, J. Microsc. 163:151–165.Google Scholar
  21. Sheppard, C.J.R., and Choudhury, A., 1977, Image formation in the scanning microscope, Opt. Acta. 24:1051–1073.Google Scholar
  22. Stokseth, P.A., 1969, Properties of a defocused optical system, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 59:1314–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilson, T., 1993, Image formation in confocal microscopy, In: Electronic Light Microscopy (D.M. Shotton, ed.), Wiley-Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Young, I.T., 1989, Image fidelity: Characterizing the imaging transfer function, Methods Cell Biol. 30:2–47.Google Scholar
  25. Zhang, D.H., Wadsworth, P., and Hepler, P.K., 1990, Microtubule dynamics in living dividing plant cells: Confocal imaging of microinjected fluorescent brain tubulin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 87:8820–8824.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Shaw
    • 1
  1. 1.John Innes CentreNorwichUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations