Literature DB >> 30767050

Fluorescence microscope light source stability.

Firas Mubaid1, Daniel Kaufman1, Tse-Luen Wee1,2, Dong-Son Nguyen-Huu3, David Young4, Maria Anghelopoulou5, Claire M Brown6,7,8,9,10.   

Abstract

The process of fluorescence starts with the efficient generation of light that is required for the excitation of fluorophores. As such, light sources are a crucial component of a fluorescence microscope. Choosing the right illumination tool can not only improve the quality of experimental results, but also the microscope's economic and environmental footprint. While arc lamps have historically proven to be a reliable light source for widefield fluorescence microscopy, solid-state light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have become the light source of choice for new fluorescence microscopy systems. In this paper, we demonstrate that LEDs have superior light stability on all timescales tested and use less electrical power than traditional light sources when used at lower power outputs. They can be readily switched on and off electronically, have a longer lifetime and they do not contain mercury, and thus are better for the environment. We demonstrate that it is important to measure light source power output during warm-up and switching, as a light source's responsiveness (in terms of power) can be quite variable. Several general protocols for testing light source stability are presented. A detailed life cycle analysis shows that an LED light source can have a fourfold lower environmental impact when compared to a metal halide source.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fluorescence; LED; Light source; Microscopy; Solid state; Stability

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30767050     DOI: 10.1007/s00418-019-01776-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Histochem Cell Biol        ISSN: 0948-6143            Impact factor:   4.304


  4 in total

1.  Towards community-driven metadata standards for light microscopy: tiered specifications extending the OME model.

Authors:  Mathias Hammer; Maximiliaan Huisman; Alessandro Rigano; Ulrike Boehm; James J Chambers; Nathalie Gaudreault; Alison J North; Jaime A Pimentel; Damir Sudar; Peter Bajcsy; Claire M Brown; Alexander D Corbett; Orestis Faklaris; Judith Lacoste; Alex Laude; Glyn Nelson; Roland Nitschke; Farzin Farzam; Carlas S Smith; David Grunwald; Caterina Strambio-De-Castillia
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 47.990

Review 2.  Best practices and tools for reporting reproducible fluorescence microscopy methods.

Authors:  Paula Montero Llopis; Rebecca A Senft; Tim J Ross-Elliott; Ryan Stephansky; Daniel P Keeley; Preman Koshar; Guillermo Marqués; Ya-Sheng Gao; Benjamin R Carlson; Thomas Pengo; Mark A Sanders; Lisa A Cameron; Michelle S Itano
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 28.547

3.  Subcellular analysis of nuclear and cytoplasmic redox indices differentiates breast cancer cell subtypes better than nuclear-to-cytoplasmic area ratio.

Authors:  Annemarie Jacob; He N Xu; Andrea L Stout; Lin Z Li
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 3.758

Review 4.  Optical Detection Methods for High-Throughput Fluorescent Droplet Microflow Cytometry.

Authors:  Kaiser Pärnamets; Tamas Pardy; Ants Koel; Toomas Rang; Ott Scheler; Yannick Le Moullec; Fariha Afrin
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 2.891

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.