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

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

[3]  Robert M Zucker,et al.  Evaluation of confocal microscopy system performance. , 2001, Methods in molecular biology.

[4]  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.

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

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

[7]  S. Inoué,et al.  Foundations of Confocal Scanned Imaging in Light Microscopy , 2006 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[14]  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.

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

[16]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[24]  J. J. Art,et al.  Photon Detectors for Confocal Microscopy , 2006 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[35]  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.

[36]  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.

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

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

[39]  Roger Y. Tsien,et al.  Fluorophores for Confocal Microscopy: Photophysics and Photochemistry , 2006 .

[40]  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.

[41]  James B. Pawley,et al.  Fundamental Limits in Confocal Microscopy , 2006 .

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

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