2022
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-2051-9_3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimizing Long-Term Live Cell Imaging

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We also observed large variability in photostability, which is the resistance of the chromophore to bleaching by bright light. Bleaching is often a limitation in long-term live-imaging studies 49 , whereas it is an advantage in assays such as fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP), in which fast fluorescence decay enhances signal 50 . We isolated two designs that exhibited higher photostability than GFP (photostable.1 & photostable.2, with seven mutations each from PROSS-eGFP) and many significantly less photostable designs (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also observed large variability in photostability, which is the resistance of the chromophore to bleaching by bright light. Bleaching is often a limitation in long-term live-imaging studies 49 , whereas it is an advantage in assays such as fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP), in which fast fluorescence decay enhances signal 50 . We isolated two designs that exhibited higher photostability than GFP (photostable.1 & photostable.2, with seven mutations each from PROSS-eGFP) and many significantly less photostable designs (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also observed large variability in photostability, which is the resistance of the chromophore to bleaching by bright light. Bleaching is often a limitation in long-term live-imaging studies 49 , whereas it is an advantage in assays such as fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP), in which fast fluorescence decay enhances signal 50 . We isolated two designs that exhibited higher photostability than GFP (photostable.1 & photostable.2, with seven mutations each from PROSS-eGFP) and many significantly less photostable designs (Figure 5A and Supplementary Figure 15).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, COSM is presented as an alternative approach to achieve brightfield optical sectioning [2,16]. This optical sectioning technique, generally, is linked to fluorescence microscopy, where photodamage and phototoxicity issues have been noted [17,18]. Adopting conventional brightfield microscopy for optical sectioning is of great significance because some of the biological specimens are not suitable for fluorescence imaging, it offers label-free imaging modalities, and it is simple, fast, and has a low cost.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%