Comparison of two‐photon excitation laser scanning microscopy with UV‐confocal laser scanning microscopy in three‐dimensional calcium imaging using the fluorescence indicator Indo‐1

Two‐photon excitation laser scanning fluorescence microscopy (2p‐LSM) was compared with UV‐excitation confocal laser scanning fluorescence microscopy (UV‐CLSM) in terms of three‐dimensional (3‐D) calcium imaging of living cells in culture. Indo‐1 was used as a calcium indicator. Since the excitation volume is more limited and excitation wavelengths are longer in 2p‐LSM than in UV‐CLSM, 2p‐LSM exhibited several advantages over UV‐CLSM: (1) a lower level of background signal by a factor of 6–17, which enhances the contrast by a factor of 6–21; (2) a lower rate of photobleaching by a factor of 2–4; (3) slightly lower phototoxicity. When 3‐D images were repeatedly acquired, the calcium concentration determined by UV‐CLSM depended strongly on the number of data acquisitions and the nuclear regions falsely exhibited low calcium concentrations, probably due to an interplay of different levels of photobleaching of Indo‐1 and autofluorescence, while the calcium concentration evaluated by 2p‐LSM was stable and homogeneous throughout the cytoplasm. The spatial resolution of 2p‐LSM was worse by 10% in the focal plane and by 30% along the optical axis due to the longer excitation wavelength. This disadvantage can be overcome by the addition of a confocal pinhole (two‐photon excitation confocal laser scanning fluorescence microscopy), which made the resolution similar to that in UV‐CLSM. These results indicate that 2p‐LSM is preferable for repeated 3‐D reconstruction of calcium concentration in living cells. In UV‐CLSM, 0.18‐mW laser power with a 2.φ pinhole (in normalized optical coordinate) gives better signal‐to‐noise ratio, contrast and resolution than 0.09‐mW laser power with a 4.9‐φ pinhole. However, since the damage to cells and the rate of photobleaching is substantially greater under the former condition, it is not suitable for repeated acquisition of 3‐D images.

[1]  W. Webb,et al.  Two-photon-excitation fluorescence imaging of three-dimensional calcium-ion activity. , 1994, Applied optics.

[2]  David R. Sandison,et al.  Quantitative Fluorescence Imaging with Laser Scanning Confocal Microscopy , 1990 .

[3]  M. Kempe,et al.  Resolution in nonlinear laser scanning microscopy , 1994 .

[4]  O. Nakamura,et al.  Three-dimensional imaging characteristics of laser scan fluorescence microscopy--Two-photon excitation vs.single-photon excitation , 1993 .

[5]  W. Denk,et al.  Two-photon laser scanning fluorescence microscopy. , 1990, Science.

[6]  K. Carlsson,et al.  Imaging of fluorescent neurons labelled with fluoro-gold and fluorescent axon terminals labelled with AMCA (7-amino-4-methylcoumarine-3-acetic acid) conjugated antiserum using a UV-laser confocal scanning microscope , 1991, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[7]  Clemens Storz,et al.  NONLINEAR ABSORPTION EXTENDS CONFOCAL FLUORESCENCE MICROSCOPY INTO THE ULTRA-VIOLET REGIME AND CONFINES THE ILLUMINATION VOLUME , 1994 .

[8]  M. Fordham,et al.  An evaluation of confocal versus conventional imaging of biological structures by fluorescence light microscopy , 1987, The Journal of cell biology.

[9]  R. Tsien,et al.  A new generation of Ca2+ indicators with greatly improved fluorescence properties. , 1985, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[10]  M. Goodman,et al.  Rapid scanning confocal microscopy. , 1993, Methods in cell biology.

[11]  W. Denk,et al.  Two-photon scanning photochemical microscopy: mapping ligand-gated ion channel distributions. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  C. Sheppard,et al.  Theory and practice of scanning optical microscopy , 1984 .