Advertisement

Evaluation of Confocal Microscopy System Performance

  • Robert M. Zucker
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology™ book series (MIMB, volume 319)

Abstract

The confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) has enormous potential in many biological fields. When tests are made to evaluate the performance of a CLSM, the usual subjective assessment is accomplished by using a histological test slide to create a “pretty picture.” Without the use of functional tests, many of the machines could be working at suboptimal performance levels, delivering suboptimum performance and possibly misleading data. To replace the subjectivity in evaluating a confocal microscope, tests were derived or perfected that measure field illumination, lens clarity, laser power, laser stability, dichroic functionality, spectral registration, axial resolution, scanning stability, photomultiplier tube quality, overall machine stability, and system noise. These tests will help serve as a guide for other investigators to ensure that their machines are working correctly to provide data that are accurate with the necessary resolution, sensitivity, and precision. Utilization of this proposed testing approach will help eliminate the subjective nature of assessing the CLSM and allow different machines to be compared. These tests are essential if one is to make intensity measurements.

Key Words

Confocal microscope lasers coefficient of variation photomultiplier tubes field illumination axial resolution spectral registration laser stability beads microscope lenses quality assurance quantification spectroscopy 

References

  1. 1.
    Zucker, R. M. and Price, O. T. (2001) Evaluation of confocal system performance. Cytometry 44, 273–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zucker, R. M. and Price O. T. (2001) Statistical evaluation of confocal microscopy images. Cytometry 44, 295–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zucker, R. M. and Price, O. T. (1999) Practical confocal microscopy and the evaluation of system performance. Methods 18, 447–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Centroze, V. and Pawley J. (1995) Tutorial on practical confocal microscopy and use of the confocal test specimen, in Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy, 2nd ed. (Pawley, J., ed.), Plenum, New York, pp. 559–567.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Centroze, V. and Pawley, J. (1998) Practical laser scanning confocal light microscopy: obtaining optimum performance from your instrument, in Cell Biology, 2nd ed. (Celis, J., ed.), Academic, New York, Vol. 3, pp. 149–169.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sheppard, C. J. R. and Shotton, D. M. (1997) Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy, Bios Scientific, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marjlof, L. and Forsgren, P. O. (1993) Accurate imaging in confocal microscopy, in Methods of Cell Biology (Matsumoto, B., ed.), Academic, San Diego, CA. pp. 79–95.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carter, D. (1999) Practical considerations for collecting confocal images, in Confocal Microscopy Methods and Protocols (Paddock, S., ed.), Methods in Molecular Biology Vol. 122, Humana, Totowa, NJ, pp. 35–57.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pawley, J. (1995) Fundamental limits in confocal microscopy in Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy, 2nd ed. (Pawley, J., ed.), Plenum, New York, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pawley, J. (2000) The 39 steps: a cautionary tale of quantitative 3-D fluorescence microscopy. Biotechniques 28(5), 884–886.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swedlow, J. R., Hu, D., Andrews, P. D., Roos, D. S., and Murray, J. M. (2002) Measuring tubulin content in Toxoplasma gondii: a comparison of laser scanning confocal microscopy and wide field fluorescence microscopy. PNAS 99, 2014–2019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    White, N. S., Errington, R. J., Fricker, M. D., and Wood, J. L. Aberration control in quantitative imaging of botanical specimens by multi dimensional fluorescence microscopy. J. Microsc 181, 99–116.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Piston, D. W. (1998) Choosing objective lenses: the importance of numerical aperture and magnification in digital optical microscopy. Biol. Bull. 195(1), 1–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Czader, M., Liljeborg, A., Auer, G., and Porwit, A. (1996) Confocal 3-dimensional DNA image cytometry in thick tissue sections. Cytometry 25(3), 246–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shapiro, H. (1995) Practical Flow Cytometry, 3rd ed., Wiley-Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Watson, J. V. (1991) Introduction to Flow Cytometry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muirhead, K. (1993) Quality control for clinical flow cytometry, in Clinical Flow Cytometry Principles and Applications (Bauer, K. D., Duque, R. E., and Shankey, T. V., eds.), Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Russ, J. C. (1998) Image Processing Handbook, 3rd ed., CRC, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pawley, J. B. (1994) Sources of noise in three dimensional microscope data sets, in Three Dimensional Confocal Microscopy: Volume Investigations of Biological Specimens, Academic, New York.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Watson, J. V. (1992) Flow Cytometry Data Analysis: Basic Concepts and Statistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Art, J. (1995) Photon detectors for confocal microscopy, in Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy, 2nd ed. (Pawley, J., ed), Plenum, New York, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cardullo, R. A. and Alm, E. J. (1998) Introduction to image processing, in Methods in Cell Biology (Sluder, G., and Wolf, D. E., ed.), Academic, New York. Vol 56, 99–115.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steyger, P. (1999) Assessing confocal microscopy systems for purchase. Methods 18(4), 435–446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lerner, J. L. and Zucher, R. M. (2004) Calibration and validation of spectroscopic imaging. Cytometry 62, 8–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Zucker
    • 1
  1. 1.Reproductive Toxicology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryUS Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle Park

Personalised recommendations