Quantitative confocal microscopy: beyond a pretty picture.

Quantitative optical microscopy has become the norm, with the confocal laser-scanning microscope being the workhorse of many imaging laboratories. Generating quantitative data requires a greater emphasis on the accurate operation of the microscope itself, along with proper experimental design and adequate controls. The microscope, which is more accurately an imaging system, cannot be treated as a "black box" with the collected data viewed as infallible. There needs to be regularly scheduled performance testing that will ensure that quality data are being generated. This regular testing also allows for the tracking of metrics that can point to issues before they result in instrument malfunction and downtime. In turn, images must be collected in a manner that is quantitative with maximal signal to noise (which can be difficult depending on the application) without data clipping. Images must then be processed to correct for background intensities, fluorophore cross talk, and uneven field illumination. With advanced techniques such as spectral imaging, Förster resonance energy transfer, and fluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopy, experimental design needs to be carefully planned out and include all appropriate controls. Quantitative confocal imaging in all of these contexts and more will be explored within the chapter.

[1]  Claire M. Brown,et al.  Live-cell migration and adhesion turnover assays. , 2013, Methods in molecular biology.

[2]  R. Zucker Quality assessment of confocal microscopy slide‐based systems: Instability , 2006, Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology.

[3]  R. Tsien,et al.  Improved monomeric red, orange and yellow fluorescent proteins derived from Discosoma sp. red fluorescent protein , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[4]  R. Zucker,et al.  Evaluation of confocal microscopy system performance. , 2001, Cytometry.

[5]  J. Pawley,et al.  The 39 steps: a cautionary tale of quantitative 3-D fluorescence microscopy. , 2000, BioTechniques.

[6]  G. Ulrich Nienhaus,et al.  mRuby, a Bright Monomeric Red Fluorescent Protein for Labeling of Subcellular Structures , 2009, PloS one.

[7]  Anne-Marie Girard,et al.  Quality assurance testing for modern optical imaging systems. , 2011, Microscopy and microanalysis : the official journal of Microscopy Society of America, Microbeam Analysis Society, Microscopical Society of Canada.

[8]  Benjamin Rappaz,et al.  Fluorescence resonance energy transfer microscopy as demonstrated by measuring the activation of the serine/threonine kinase Akt , 2013, Nature Protocols.

[9]  Yuval Garini,et al.  Spectral imaging: Principles and applications , 2006, Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology.

[10]  Claire M. Brown,et al.  Measuring and interpreting point spread functions to determine confocal microscope resolution and ensure quality control , 2011, Nature Protocols.

[11]  Claire M. Brown,et al.  Live-cell microscopy – tips and tools , 2009, Journal of Cell Science.

[12]  Robert M Zucker,et al.  Reliability of confocal microscopy spectral imaging systems: Use of multispectral beads , 2007, Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology.

[13]  L. Enquist,et al.  Microdissection of neural networks by conditional reporter expression from a Brainbow herpesvirus , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Nathan C Shaner,et al.  A guide to choosing fluorescent proteins , 2005, Nature Methods.

[15]  Claire M Brown,et al.  International Test Results for Objective Lens Quality, Resolution, Spectral Accuracy and Spectral Separation for Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopes , 2013, Microscopy and Microanalysis.