Slashdot Mirror
Recent Nobel Prize Winner Revolutionizes Microscopy Again
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."
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.
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.
*sigh* And some of us have yet to get bored with "pull my finger".
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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."
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.
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.