New Microscope Watches Cells in 3D

Jamie found a story about a new 3D Microscope which creates 3D videos of cells in action. Traditionally scientists have had to choose between high resolution and animation, so no doubt this device will cure the common cold.

Comments

Actually buy one

[jabuzz]

Is there a company actually selling these then or is it a one off experimental microscope?

Good job those 1TB hard disks are out, because the storage requirements of these sorts of things is insane. The researchers will be wanting to do things like 24 hour time lapse 3D movies with 60 second frame intervals - repeatedly. I suppose I get to play with ever bigger storage systems :-)

Death by light

[G4from128k]

Although the article does not say so, I'd bet that creatures don't live for very long. All of high-resolution imaging systems that I'm familiar with concentrate so much light on the subject matter that the creature dies within minutes.

Just think of the physics. Most digital sensors need about 10,000 to 100,000 photon to register a full response (i.e, "white") and to see 30 frames per second, that's 300k to 3 million photons per second per pixel. At high resolution a single cell might be 100 pixels by 100 pixels. That means that the poor creature is being hit by 3 to 30 billion photons per second. Even if there's no UV and all heat is removed from the subject, visible light photons in a high enough flux rate will induce various photochemical reactions that damage DNA, denature proteins, and photo-oxidize cellular chemicals. Or to put in another way. consider the amount of light needed to image the average landscape and then concentrate it on a single cell. Even with high-gain amplifiers (= grainy, low-light pictures), the shear concentration of light means the creature doesn't last long.

Press Release Science

[LightPhoenix7]

While interesting, the article had several fallacies in it.

For one, cells can be viewed while alive - fixative isn't always necessary. Motility studies, for exmaple, don't actually kill the cells (or sperm). For another, dyes aren't the only technique to view cells - plasmid insertion into bacteria with a fluorescent marker not only allows cells to be seen, but doesn't harm the cell.

Secondly, I find it decidedly inconvenient that this can only view small images. My current research is in bacterial biofilms - living and dead. I haven't had any trouble viewing living biofilms under a fluorescent or confocal microscope. What if you want to study the chemotaxis of groups of cells? Most cells, eukaryote or prokaryote, talk to each other and can respond differentially to external signals.

Thirdly, even if you can view these cells, only in very specific instances will it give clues about functionality. Sure, that's better than nothing, but it's not the miraculous panacea that the article describes. The mechanics of drug interaction are much more complex than can be determined by simply looking at a cell.

Finally, from a research standpoint, I have to ask how much this costs. Is the cost-benefit ratio really that good that spending large amounts of money to get this is worth it? Especially considering how in reality it has such a limited usage? I would tend to assume no. There may be some very useful things you can do with this, but it just seems like much more of a toy than anything.

Re:Press Release Science

[CensorshipDonkey]

For one, cells can be viewed while alive - fixative isn't always necessary. Motility studies, for exmaple, don't actually kill the cells (or sperm). For another, dyes aren't the only technique to view cells - plasmid insertion into bacteria with a fluorescent marker not only allows cells to be seen, but doesn't harm the cell.

What's interesting about this is the cell organelle contrast. Yes, you can view living cells without exogenous contrast. No, not many good techniques exist which can show internal structure very clearly, in vivo, with no exogenous contrast. Differential interference contrast (DIC) is nice (Interactive Java Tutorial demonstrating this common technique).

Secondly, I find it decidedly inconvenient that this can only view small images.

I chose to respond to these comments to shed some light on the science. This, however, is just plain argumentative, short-sighted, etc etc. On a topic more accessible to the general public it would be obvious flamebait.

Thirdly, even if you can view these cells, only in very specific instances will it give clues about functionality. Sure, that's better than nothing, but it's not the miraculous panacea that the article describes. The mechanics of drug interaction are much more complex than can be determined by simply looking at a cell.

I agree, it's an excellent tool, but it will take a long time before it is fully utilized, and it does not cure cancer by itself. However, when fluorescence confocal microscopy came out, it had (and still does) many more problems. And yet, it revolutionized so many fields it would be impossible count them.

Finally, from a research standpoint, I have to ask how much this costs. Is the cost-benefit ratio really that good that spending large amounts of money to get this is worth it? Especially considering how in reality it has such a limited usage?

This should cost anything more than a good confocal microscope once the technology is refined. Most departments have at least one of those for common usage among labs (same for mass spectrometers, etc). In fact, it's one of the cheaper instruments I can think of, and extremely easy to maintain.

Article figure somewhat mislabeled

[Ichoran]

The worm shown in the picture in the article is probably about 200 microns long, not 1 mm--the one shown is recently hatched, not an adult. You can tell because adult worms do not have a pharynx that takes up nearly half the length of the body. Also, in adults you'd be able to see reproductive structures (including eggs).