Recent Nobel Prize Winner Revolutionizes Microscopy Again

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Recent Nobel Prize Winner Revolutionizes Microscopy Again

Posted by Soulskill on Friday October 24, 2014 @05:07AM from the magnified-consistency dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Eric Betzig recently shared in the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his work on high-resolution microscopy. Just yesterday, Betzig and a team of researchers published a new microscopy technique (abstract) that "allows them to observe living cellular processes at groundbreaking resolution and speed." According to the article, "Until now, the best microscope for viewing living systems as they moved were confocal microscopes. They beam light down onto a sample of cells. The light penetrates the whole sample and bounces back. ... The light is toxic, and degrades the living system over time. Betzig's new microscope solves this by generating a sheet of light that comes in from the side of the sample, made up of a series of beams that harm the sample less than one solid cone of light. Scientists can now snap a high-res image of the entire section they're illuminating, without exposing the rest of the sample to any light at all."

34 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

We demand more Bennett! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 05:11 · Score: 5, Funny

This is boring and their work sounds useless to the world-at-large. We need more world-changing articles by Bennett Hasselton coming up with better algorithms to solve the queueing issues for the ice lines at Burning Man.
1. Re:We demand more Bennett! by Charliemopps · 2014-10-24 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  This is boring and their work sounds useless to the world-at-large. We need more world-changing articles by Bennett Hasselton coming up with better algorithms to solve the queueing issues for the ice lines at Burning Man.
  Ok, I'll bite. Why are we trolling Bennett Haselton?
2. Re:We demand more Bennett! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 05:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Ok, I'll bite. Why are we trolling Bennett Haselton?
  He trolled us first with his endlessly long drivel pieces.
3. Re:We demand more Bennett! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  He's an annoying douchenozzle and we're fed up with his posts.
4. Re:We demand more Bennett! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Dice posts his drivel up like it's an almighty opinion and the majority of those commenting disagree or bring up really good points or blatantly show how he doesn't know what he's talking about. He never says a fucking word here in the comments - this is what gets me. The exchange is unbalanced.
  So it's like Dice shoving his opinion in readers face, Haselton too spineless to come here and back himself up in anyway. It's been a repeating loop with every "contribution". Atleast jon katz had an account that I know of and actually commented... last time in 2002. If Binnnet does actually post ever, I stand corrected. But still no one simply fucking cares what he has to say.
5. Re:We demand more Bennett! by morgauxo · 2014-10-24 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  which post was the last one, the straw that broke the camel's back
6. Re:We demand more Bennett! by wonkey_monkey · 2014-10-24 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  At least his shtick is on a different topic each time.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
7. Re:We demand more Bennett! by Charliemopps · 2014-10-24 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Right, that's my question. I hate his 14 chapter monologs as much as the next guy. But why were people finally fed up today?
8. Re:We demand more Bennett! by Areyoukiddingme · 2014-10-24 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  If Bennnet does actually post ever, I stand corrected.
  I've seen him respond to comments on one of his submissions. I stopped reading his spew some time ago, but I will occasionally read the comments because invariably somebody in the community will post a better, more insightful, more correct discussion of the topic.
  But...
  
  But still no one simply fucking cares what he has to say.
  Yup.
9. Re:We demand more Bennett! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-25 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  "monologues". Why are you semi-literate?
10. Re:We demand more Bennett! by morgauxo · 2014-10-25 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  I never even noticed it. Well.. after hearing so much about it I went back and looked and kind of see what people are talking about. Before I had it so toned out that I never noticed. There are always articles that don' t interest me. They might be drivel or they might just not be one of my topics. Either way.. you don' t have to click every headline!
Bennett Haselton on the implications by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 05:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Seems pretty exciting and I'm never against easing the suffering of humanity. But really I want to know how this will effect us? What are the implications? How will this effect distributed social networks, will we still need them? What if I'm stuck in the dessert and I need ice. I'd like to hear his thoughts before I draw my conclusions. He's a frequent contributor.
1. Re:Bennett Haselton on the implications by Bengie · 2014-10-24 05:21 · Score: 2
  
  Nearly all technology starts out this way. Even if we don't directly use it, someone will use it to find out something new that could not otherwise be known.
2. Re:Bennett Haselton on the implications by gstoddart · 2014-10-24 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  Nearly all technology starts out this way
  With Bennet Haselton???
  I hope not.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:Bennett Haselton on the implications by RingDev · 2014-10-24 05:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I have a friend who works for a laser microscopy manufacturer. They use this technology (or systems very similar to it) to be able to record, in real time, cellular activity, INSIDE the cell, without killing the cell.
  You know how it's 2014 and we still don't understand how memories are formed, or what the exact interactions between cancers and health cells are, or how we're always looking for new ways to deliver targeted medication/toxins on a cellular level?
  Yeah, all of that ties back to this. Want to know what exactly is going on as the ebola virus invades a cell? This will let you see it, in real time.
  This is the stuff that is the bedrock that leaps in scientific knowledge is based on. We are staring at the shoulders of a giant.
  -Rick
  
  --
  "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
4. Re:Bennett Haselton on the implications by Em+Adespoton · 2014-10-24 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  What if I'm stuck in the dessert and I need ice.
  I'm sure there'd be plenty of people happy to help you eat your way out... depending on the dessert of course. Maybe Bennett could help with THAT?
*sigh* by gstoddart · 2014-10-24 05:22 · Score: 2

Betzig came up with his Nobel-winning microscope (PALM) when he'd grown frustrated with the limitations of other microscope technologies. The so-called lattice light-sheet microscopy that he describes in Thursday's paper was the result of his eventual boredom with PALM.
*sigh* And some of us have yet to get bored with "pull my finger".

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:*sigh* by Em+Adespoton · 2014-10-24 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Was the previous version called FACE?
Can it photograph an ebola virus? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 05:40 · Score: 0

Fox News needs some B-roll. People are being cured; time to ratchet up the fear factor.
1. Re:Can it photograph an ebola virus? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  It can't even photograph Bennett Hasselton's dick and it's 50x larger than an ebola virus.
Toxic light by icebike · 2014-10-24 06:09 · Score: 0

Toxic light is a new one.
Having no substance, light can't carry any toxins.
The light might fry the specimen. But no rational definition of toxic applies here.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
1. Re:Toxic light by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, the baseline definition from Wikipedia seems to support this definition without any stretching:
  "Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism. Toxicity can refer to the effect on a whole organism, such as an animal, bacterium, or plant, as well as the effect on a substructure of the organism, such as a cell (cytotoxicity) or an organ such as the liver (hepatotoxicity)."
  The substance (light) damages the whole organism, or essential structures of it.
  Light is a thing. Just because it has no mass doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We consider all types of radiation 'toxic'. Radiation poisoning is just a fancy way of saying, 'energetic light poisoning'.
2. Re:Toxic light by wonkey_monkey · 2014-10-24 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  toxic
  adjective
  1.
  of, pertaining to, affected with, or caused by a toxin or poison:
  a toxic condition.
  2.
  acting as or having the effect of a poison; poisonous:
  a toxic drug.
  poison
  noun
  1.
  a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
3. Re:Toxic light by reverseengineer · 2014-10-24 07:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The toxicity is actually an indirect effect. The fluorescent dyes can in their excited states react with molecular oxygen to produce reactive oxygen species that damage tissues. By reducing the time and energy of excitation of the fluorophores (by only exciting those actually about to be scanned by the microscope), this technique reduces the amount of toxic byproducts.
  
  --
  "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
4. Re:Toxic light by serviscope_minor · 2014-10-24 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  I love how slashdotters with absoloutely know knowledge of a field dismiss a widely established claim using nothing but the burning power of blind ignorance.
  Toxic light is a new one. Having no substance, light can't carry any toxins. The light might fry the specimen.
  But no rational definition of toxic applies here.
  Light, it turns out does cause toxic effects:
  http://www.microscopyu.com/ref...
  It's a well known effect called "phototoxiciy". And it's a huge problem in live cells, especially when they express something like GFP.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
5. Re:Toxic light by icebike · 2014-10-24 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  As best I can tell, even reading all the other replays, THIS reply is the only one that makes any sense at all.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
6. Re:Toxic light by icebike · 2014-10-24 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  I like how smartass respondents like to gloss over confirmations in their own reference as if they didn't exist, and wouldn't be caught.
  
  Phototoxicity often occurs upon repeated exposure of fluorescently labeled cells to illumination from lasers and high-intensity arc-discharge lamps. In their excited state, fluorescent molecules tend to react with molecular oxygen to produce free radicals that can damage subcellular components and compromise the entire cell. In addition, several reports have suggested that particular constituents of standard culture media, including the vitamin riboflavin and the amino acid tryptophan, may also contribute to adverse light-induced effects on cultured cells. Fluorescent proteins, due to the fact that their fluorophores are buried deep within a protective polypeptide envelope, are generally not phototoxic to cells. However, many of the synthetic fluorophores, such as the MitoTracker and nuclear stains (Hoechst, SYTO cyanine dyes, and DRAQ5), can be highly toxic to cells when illuminated for even relatively short periods of time. In designing experiments, fluorophores that exhibit the longest excitation wavelengths possible should be chosen in order to minimize damage to cells by short wavelength
  
  It wasn't the light that was toxic you idiot.
  It was the fluorescent molecules added to the specimen, and
  constituents of standard culture media,
  nuclear stains, dyes, etc.
  Light itself is not toxic. Read reverseengineer's response http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:Toxic light by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  It was the fluorescent molecules added to the specimen,
  No, it is usually the combination of light and fluorescent molecules, as it is the excitation process that causes most such problems. The fluorescent molecules by themselves are usually not a problem. Although there are techniques with the light itself is the problem, whether from heating caused, or because at the shorter wavelengths with enough exposure it can induce chemical changes with toxic effects. Your quote even says something to this effect.
8. Re:Toxic light by serviscope_minor · 2014-10-24 21:03 · Score: 2
  
  OK, so don't let the fact that I've worked in fluorescence microscopy hold you up. You clearly fervently believe that you are correct even though your entire exposure to the area is one article on slashdot.
  It wasn't the light that was toxic you idiot.
  It was the fluorescent molecules added to the specimen, and constituents of standard culture media, nuclear stains, dyes, etc.
  Then how come the cells lasted that long with fluorescent proteins transfected in then? The reason is the toxicity only occurs on exposure to light. This is probably because light causes ioisation (bluer light is more toxic) and fluorescent dyes are particularly prone to such things.
  The light is what causes the effect and it happens, albeit to a lesser extent, without fluorescent dyes.
  In other words, exposure to light alone will kill cells and not due to thermal effects.
  IOW light is toxic.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Revolutionary? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 06:12 · Score: 0

I'll agree that Betzig's work is very impressive, but it's light sheet microscopy, a technique that has been around for literally over 100 years. It's not revolutionary. Now PALM / STORM I'll agree is revolutionary, which is why the Nobel Academy should have credited Xiaowei Zhuang who arguably did more development on localization microscopy than Eric Betzig, as well as publishing the technique in the exact same month.
Dr Royal Rife revisited by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 06:21 · Score: 0

Didn't Dr Royal Rife already do this 80+ years ago?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife
"series of beams" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 06:25 · Score: 0

Was our honorable Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) involved with this research?
Two-photon excitation microscopy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 06:52 · Score: 0

No mention of Two-photon excitation microscopy? It already reduces phototoxicity compared to regular confocal imaging.
Raymond Royal Rife.... anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-25 00:24 · Score: 0

Ryal Raymond Rife did this a loooong tim ago.