MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000766642 · doi:10.1242/jcs.242834

Optimizing live-cell fluorescence imaging conditions to minimize phototoxicity

2020· article· en· W3000766642 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander Kiepas, Elena Voorand, Firas Mubaid, Peter M. Siegel, Claire M. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsPhototoxicityBiologyFluorescenceLive cell imagingFluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopyCellOpticsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluorescence illumination can cause phototoxicity that negatively affects living samples. This study demonstrates that much of the phototoxicity and photobleaching experienced with live-cell fluorescence imaging occurs as a result of 'illumination overhead' (IO). This occurs when a sample is illuminated but fluorescence emission is not being captured by the microscope camera. Several technological advancements have been developed, including fast-switching LED lamps and transistor-transistor logic (TTL) circuits, to diminish phototoxicity caused by IO. These advancements are not standard features on most microscopes and many biologists are unaware of their necessity for live-cell imaging. IO is particularly problematic when imaging rapid processes that require short exposure times. This study presents a workflow to optimize imaging conditions for measuring both slow and dynamic processes while minimizing phototoxicity on any standard microscope. The workflow includes a guide on how to (1) determine the maximum image exposure time for a dynamic process, (2) optimize excitation light intensity and (3) assess cell health with mitochondrial markers.This article has an associated First Person interview with the first author of the paper.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207