Quantitative fluorescence microscopy and image deconvolution.

Quantitative imaging and image deconvolution have become standard techniques for the modern cell biologist because they can form the basis of an increasing number of assays for molecular function in a cellular context. There are two major types of deconvolution approaches--deblurring and restoration algorithms. Deblurring algorithms remove blur but treat a series of optical sections as individual two-dimensional entities and therefore sometimes mishandle blurred light. Restoration algorithms determine an object that, when convolved with the point-spread function of the microscope, could produce the image data. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods are discussed in this chapter. Image deconvolution in fluorescence microscopy has usually been applied to high-resolution imaging to improve contrast and thus detect small, dim objects that might otherwise be obscured. Their proper use demands some consideration of the imaging hardware, the acquisition process, fundamental aspects of photon detection, and image processing. This can prove daunting for some cell biologists, but the power of these techniques has been proven many times in the works cited in the chapter and elsewhere. Their usage is now well defined, so they can be incorporated into the capabilities of most laboratories. A major application of fluorescence microscopy is the quantitative measurement of the localization, dynamics, and interactions of cellular factors. The introduction of green fluorescent protein and its spectral variants has led to a significant increase in the use of fluorescence microscopy as a quantitative assay system. For quantitative imaging assays, it is critical to consider the nature of the image-acquisition system and to validate its response to known standards. Any image-processing algorithms used before quantitative analysis should preserve the relative signal levels in different parts of the image. A very common image-processing algorithm, image deconvolution, is used to remove blurred signal from an image. There are two major types of deconvolution approaches, deblurring and restoration algorithms. Deblurring algorithms remove blur, but treat a series of optical sections as individual two-dimensional entities, and therefore sometimes mishandle blurred light. Restoration algorithms determine an object that, when convolved with the point-spread function of the microscope, could produce the image data. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods are discussed.

[1]  S. Gibson,et al.  Experimental test of an analytical model of aberration in an oil-immersion objective lens used in three-dimensional light microscopy. , 1991, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[2]  L. Schaefer,et al.  Generalized approach for accelerated maximum likelihood based image restoration applied to three‐dimensional fluorescence microscopy , 2001, Journal of microscopy.

[3]  Ilan Davis,et al.  Drosophila wingless and Pair-Rule Transcripts Localize Apically by Dynein-Mediated Transport of RNA Particles , 2001, Cell.

[4]  Shinya Inoué,et al.  Direct-view high-speed confocal scanner: the CSU-10. , 2002, Methods in cell biology.

[5]  D. Agard,et al.  Computational adaptive optics for live three-dimensional biological imaging , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  R. Tsien,et al.  green fluorescent protein , 2020, Catalysis from A to Z.

[7]  J. Swedlow,et al.  Multiple chromosomal populations of topoisomerase II detected in vivo by time-lapse, three-dimensional wide-field microscopy , 1993, Cell.

[8]  Colin J. R. Sheppard,et al.  Signal-to-Noise in Confocal Microscopes , 1995 .

[9]  T J Holmes,et al.  Blind deconvolution of quantum-limited incoherent imagery: maximum-likelihood approach. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[10]  J. Swedlow,et al.  A workingperson's guide to deconvolution in light microscopy. , 2001, BioTechniques.

[11]  D. Agard Optical sectioning microscopy: cellular architecture in three dimensions. , 1984, Annual review of biophysics and bioengineering.

[12]  D. Rawlins,et al.  The point‐spread function of a confocal microscope: its measurement and use in deconvolution of 3‐D data , 1991 .

[13]  W. A. Carrington Image restoration in 3-D microscopy with limited data , 1990, Photonics West - Lasers and Applications in Science and Engineering.

[14]  K. Svoboda,et al.  Photon Upmanship: Why Multiphoton Imaging Is More than a Gimmick , 1997, Neuron.

[15]  Richard N. Day,et al.  Fluorescent protein spectra. , 2001, Journal of cell science.

[16]  D. Agard,et al.  Perturbation of Nuclear Architecture by Long-Distance Chromosome Interactions , 1996, Cell.

[17]  J A Conchello,et al.  Superresolution and convergence properties of the expectation-maximization algorithm for maximum-likelihood deconvolution of incoherent images. , 1998, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[18]  J. Lippincott-Schwartz,et al.  Studying protein dynamics in living cells , 2001, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[19]  M. Chalfie,et al.  Green fluorescent protein as a marker for gene expression. , 1994, Science.

[20]  P. Shaw,et al.  Localization of 5 S genes and transcripts in Pisum sativum nuclei. , 1993, Journal of cell science.

[21]  P. Jansson Deconvolution of images and spectra , 1997 .

[22]  Jason R. Swedlow,et al.  Cajal Body dynamics and association with chromatin are ATP-dependent , 2002, Nature Cell Biology.

[23]  Colin R. F. Monks,et al.  Three-dimensional segregation of supramolecular activation clusters in T cells , 1998, Nature.

[24]  Jason R Swedlow,et al.  Measuring tubulin content in Toxoplasma gondii: A comparison of laser-scanning confocal and wide-field fluorescence microscopy , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  Marcus J. Grote,et al.  The Collection, Processing, and Display of Digital Three-Dimensional Images of Biological Specimens , 1995 .

[26]  J. Swedlow,et al.  Deconvolution in optical microscopy , 1996 .

[27]  J. Pawley,et al.  Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy , 1990, Springer US.

[28]  Jan Cerny,et al.  T-cell engagement of dendritic cells rapidly rearranges MHC class II transport , 2002, Nature.

[29]  F S Fay,et al.  Visualization of single RNA transcripts in situ. , 1998, Science.

[30]  R. Bracewell The Fourier Transform and Its Applications , 1966 .

[31]  Murray Evaluating the performance of fluorescence microscopes , 1998, Journal of microscopy.

[32]  Jason R Swedlow,et al.  Live cell imaging using wide-field microscopy and deconvolution. , 2002, Cell structure and function.

[33]  D. Agard,et al.  Fluorescence microscopy in three dimensions. , 1989, Methods in cell biology.

[34]  J. Goodman Introduction to Fourier optics , 1969 .

[35]  J. Conchello,et al.  Three-dimensional imaging by deconvolution microscopy. , 1999, Methods.

[36]  T. Stearns,et al.  The green revolution , 1995 .

[37]  E. Salmon,et al.  Spinning disk confocal microscope system for rapid high-resolution, multimode, fluorescence speckle microscopy and green fluorescent protein imaging in living cells. , 2003, Methods in enzymology.

[38]  John C. Russ,et al.  The Image Processing Handbook , 2016, Microscopy and Microanalysis.

[39]  R. Silver,et al.  Ratio imaging: practical considerations for measuring intracellular calcium and pH in living tissue. , 1998, Methods in cell biology.

[40]  F S Fay,et al.  Superresolution three-dimensional images of fluorescence in cells with minimal light exposure. , 1995, Science.

[41]  Badrinath Roysam,et al.  Light Microscopic Images Reconstructed by Maximum Likelihood Deconvolution , 1995 .