Comparison study of live cells by atomic force microscopy, confocal microscopy, and scanning electrochemical microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this report, three kinds of scanning probe microscopy techniques, atomic force microscopy (AFM), confocal microscopy (CM), and scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM), were used to study live cells in the physiological environment. Two model cell lines, CV-1 and COS-7, were studied. Time-lapse images were obtained with both contact and tapping mode AFM techniques. Cells were more easily scratched or moved by contact mode AFM than by tapping mode AFM. Detailed surface structures such as filamentous structures on the cell membrane can be obtained and easily discerned with tapping mode AFM. The toxicity of ferrocenemethanol (Fc) on live cells was studied by CM in reflection mode by recording the time-lapse images of controlled live cells and live cells with different Fc concentrations. No significant change in the morphology of cells was caused by Fc. Cells were imaged by SECM with Fc as the mediator at a biased potential of 0.35 V (vs. Ag/AgCl with a saturated KCl solution). Cells did not change visibly within 1 h, which indicated that SECM was a noninvasive technique and thus has a unique advantage for the study of soft cells, since the electrode scanned above the cells instead of in contact with them. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated by the cells were detected and images based on these chemical species were obtained. It is demonstrated that SECM can provide not only the topographical images but also the images related to the chemical or biochemical species released by the live cells.Key words: live cells, atomic force microscopy, confocal microscopy, scanning electrochemical microscopy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".