Turning a Smart Phone Into a Microscope

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Turning a Smart Phone Into a Microscope

Posted by timothy on Saturday September 21, 2013 @02:18AM from the now-it's-genius dept.

MTorrice writes "By attaching a lightweight, inexpensive device to the back of a smart phone, scientists can convert the phone into a sensitive fluorescence microscope. The attachment [paper abstract] allows the phone's camera to take pictures of single nanoparticles and viruses, possibly providing a portable diagnostic tool for health care workers in developing countries. For example, doctors in remote regions could use the technique to measure HIV viral loads in patients' blood samples, allowing the doctors to easily monitor disease progression and determine the best course of treatment."

15 of 43 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Of course... by Skiron · 2013-09-21 02:20 · Score: 3, Funny

[allowing the doctors to easily monitor disease progression and determine the best course of treatment.]

They could use the phone to call for expert help.
1. Re:Of course... by drinkypoo · 2013-09-21 02:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Or the phone could diagnose the disease, or forward imagery on to some system which will do the same. That's why I got involved with infragram, in the hope that at some point I'll end up with a mobile device which can do the processing onboard. I had to say it, but this might actually be a decent excuse to use the Pi, with the camera module.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nice, but... by Heshler · 2013-09-21 02:40 · Score: 2

This is neat... but this device is probably not going to be useful in the field anytime soon. The tests described were performed on pre-purified, pre-stained, pre-smeared virus. These steps still require a lab to perform. And if you are already in a lab, might as well use a nice microscope. This is the real problem in point-of-care diagnostics, and the reason we don't all have our own personal medical tricorders yet. Big advances are still needed.
attaching lenses to camera produces microscope... by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-09-21 02:46 · Score: 2

...may have benefit where microscopes are useful.
Developments at 11!
the stage by goombah99 · 2013-09-21 03:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

one of the smallest things in a microscope is the lens. most of the microscope is precision, vibration damped, gearing to manipulate the focal distance precisely. If you are going for high resolution its not yet clear to me how you avoid the expensive non-portable part of the microscope.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:the stage by goombah99 · 2013-09-21 03:10 · Score: 2
  
  one of the smallest things in a microscope is the lens. most of the microscope is precision, vibration damped, gearing to manipulate the focal distance precisely. If you are going for high resolution its not yet clear to me how you avoid the expensive non-portable part of the microscope.
  Answering my own question: Been staring at their schematic diagram. What I think they are doing is relying on the thinness of thr sample to avoid having a long range over which to focus. then they are not worrying too much about the reproducible adjustment of the X and Y directions. this might let them get away with a precision casted fixed distance that could be trimmed to perfection over a small range then fixed.
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
2. Re:the stage by YttriumOxide · 2013-09-21 03:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  one of the smallest things in a microscope is the lens. most of the microscope is precision, vibration damped, gearing to manipulate the focal distance precisely. If you are going for high resolution its not yet clear to me how you avoid the expensive non-portable part of the microscope.
  Don't forget, this isn't talking about a standard "microscope" but rather a "fluorescence microscope", which is actually a fairly different thing.
  The linked article (and linked paper abstract) has images that give you an idea of what they're doing much better than TFA does.
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
3. Re:the stage by serviscope_minor · 2013-09-21 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  Don't forget, this isn't talking about a standard "microscope" but rather a "fluorescence microscope", which is actually a fairly different thing.
  No it isn't.
  They are basically exactly the same and the widefield fluorescence microscopes can operate in both normal and fluorescence mode. Fluorescence microscopes have an additional filter cube in the beamline so you can focus the incident light using the same optics as the image and to filter out the reflected light so that only the fluorescent light reaches the CCD.
  If you remove the cube, then you have a regular microscope and in fact vendors sell both types using the same optics and body.
  The GP is right. The things that really help with resolution are the huge heavy steel air table and a really solid, well aligned frame. Also, the thing that helps with sensitivity is having a good quality camera. A cooled SCMOS or EMCCD being the best options, the latter being both the best and most expensive.
  The smartphone has none of those.
  But then I looked at TFA. The PSF is about 2um, which is nearly 10x worse than the best possible (about 240 or so).
  Having actually being involved in some fluorescence microscopy projects, I'm a little skeptical of the use since apparently getting good labelling is somewhere between a total bitch and a complete black art, and that's in a well equipped lab. I wouldn't fancy my chances with field-labelled fluorescence microscopy.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
4. Re:the stage by umafuckit · 2013-09-21 08:54 · Score: 2
  
  Don't forget, this isn't talking about a standard "microscope" but rather a "fluorescence microscope", which is actually a fairly different thing.
  No it isn't.
  I disagree, it is a fairly different thing when you're talking about miniaturising it. I could stick a lens onto a phone cam and call it a microscope but it's not so trivial to turn a phone into a compact fluorescence microscope. You can't just whack in a Olympus filter cube, you need to think it through a little more. These guys have done a pretty good job of miniaturising the fluorescence microscope. As you say, the resolution is shitty (probably because objective NA is small). I can't see a use for the thing but I can appreciate it's geek cred. Some labelling is easy to do, though, it depends on the sample, so it might be possible for this thing to have field uses.
  
  --
  soylentnews.org
Can't... take... the STUPID! by pla · 2013-09-21 03:32 · Score: 2

By attaching a lightweight, inexpensive device to the back of a smart phone

By "device", you mean... A fluorescence microscope? Camera works as camera??? Whoah, major breakthrough, dude!

Hey! What do you suppose would happen if, instead of using a $300 phone as a camera (with all its controls inconveniently under the device), we used a $20 USB webcam?

Pinky, bring me the yak!
1. Re:Can't... take... the STUPID! by sleepypsycho · 2013-09-21 04:15 · Score: 2
  
  It is not so stupid as it sounds. Yes, they basically attached a fluorescent microscope. However, there was some engineering involved and there area some benefits over a web cam.
  - Built in capabilities.
  - connectivity allowing for remote diagnoses, software upgrades etc
  - phone providing very large range of travel and maintaining data access
  - storage of image can be linked with other patient data
  - OS for automatic analysis, image enhancement etc
  - high quality monitor with build in zoom function
  - Versatility. Other aspects of the phone can be used for other apps such as making phone call, looking up research or related material, GPS
  - Ubiquity. Smart phones are showing up all over the place,
  - third world countries are skipping wired and going directly to wireless
  - used equipment is available cheaply and deliver significant bang for the buck because the original purchase was defrayed by data plan
  - Camera quality. Phone camera quality has become quite good.
  - Engineering the fluorescent microscope to the form factor is not trivial.
  All that said, staining is probably a pretty big hurdle for field diagnostics. On the other hand a mobile clinic might have more capabilities. The device would not need to be used by one doctor making a house call..
Wow by Frankie70 · 2013-09-21 05:01 · Score: 2

I attached a football to my smartphone and turned my smartphone into a football.
Re:attaching lenses to camera produces microscope. by interkin3tic · 2013-09-21 08:16 · Score: 2

That's not a fluorescent microscope though.

Fluorescent imaging involves shining excitation light of a specific wavelength at the sample, and filtering out any light but the emission spectrum light. THEN there's the lens. Build your own fluorescent microscope and I'd be impressed. Build your own fluorescent microscope that can fit in your pocket, and that's actually an achievement.

At least, I think it is, compared the usual slashdot stories. "OMG, the next android is going to be named KIT KAT!!!!" Or "Copyright troll... SUES SOMEONE FOR SOMETHING STUPID!!!"
Not in the US of A by deviated_prevert · 2013-09-21 08:28 · Score: 4, Informative

For determining the viral load of a patent in the US the software necessary to image detect most viruses is patent encumbered. The gold standard test to determine the viral load of HCV is under a ridiculous patent and as such is completely out of reach for easy wide scale use. Using the physical image shape of the HCV virus and others is patented and you are not allowed to develop software to assay it, this is the only reason why in Canada the test is only done once on HepC patients and doctors are told not to order the test because it is out of this world expensive because of the site license costs of software to do the test.
These diagnostic patents are all held and defended by the American drug company cartels who hold the world ransom. Same thing applies to the detection of the breast cancer gene, that is why you only see the wealthy being tested for this indicator gene, then deciding to have their breasts removed if they inherited the gene. Nothing is holding back the rapid advancement of diagnostics more than the drug company cartels and they need to be broken up permanently the same way standard oil was dealt with!
All well and good developing cheap portable diagnostic devices but if ideas like, doing assay by the software counting a specific shape can be individually patented per shape and are then held ransom by crooked corporations with cooked up patents these devices will be far too expensive to do any good at all.

--
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
1. Re:Not in the US of A by kermidge · 2013-09-21 17:17 · Score: 2
  
  You've just brought up one of those inconvenient realities that are generally swept under the rug and don't make it into any kind of public discussion. I wasn't aware of this until the breast cancer gene thing a few years back and one link lead to another kind of thing. Holding health hostage may make for profit but not friends. Eventually enough enemies can overturn the idiocy. Well, we can hope. A bunch of complacent coupon clippers condemning people to death to help support their opulent lifestyle rather rubs me the wrong way.
  It's not realistic, but I wouldn't mind if Canada repudiated the patents and stole the software, for instance.
  (personal disclaimer - I've visited Ontario, city and province, thrice, and passed through twice, and have every time been amazed and humbled by how nicely I've been treated compared to the treatment I've seen Canadians put up with south of the border.)