2016
DOI: 10.1017/s1431927616005857
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Slide-Free Microscopy via UV Surface Excitation

Abstract: Microscopic evaluation of tissue remains the definitive diagnostic procedure in the evaluation of most solid tumors, as well as of many other disease processes. Conventional brightfield or fluorescence microscopy works best with thin, stained specimens mounted on glass slides, but to prepare these requires hours of processing and the help of highly skilled technical personnel. We describe a new, inexpensive form of light microscopy, based on UV surface excitation (MUSE), that can generate highquality histology… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 5 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition to confocal [3,5,6] and LSFM mentioned above, multiple other imaging methods have also been utilized for non-destructive imaging of tissues, including optical coherence tomography (OCT) [7], microscopy with UV surface excitation (MUSE) [8,9], structured illumination microscopy (SIM) [10], and nonlinear microscopy [11,12]. While these methods may have significant cost, complexity, and speed advantages for 2D imaging compared to LSFM, for 3D tissue imaging they are limited by varying combinations of low resolution, low penetration depth, or a relatively slow imaging speed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to confocal [3,5,6] and LSFM mentioned above, multiple other imaging methods have also been utilized for non-destructive imaging of tissues, including optical coherence tomography (OCT) [7], microscopy with UV surface excitation (MUSE) [8,9], structured illumination microscopy (SIM) [10], and nonlinear microscopy [11,12]. While these methods may have significant cost, complexity, and speed advantages for 2D imaging compared to LSFM, for 3D tissue imaging they are limited by varying combinations of low resolution, low penetration depth, or a relatively slow imaging speed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%