2007
DOI: 10.1364/oe.15.016839
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Time-gated single photon counting enables separation of CARS microscopy data from multiphoton-excited tissue autofluorescence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
(34 reference statements)
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The decay time of this smaller peak appears to be dramatically different from the one shown from ROI 1 or that shown in Figure 1(b). The slower decay would typically indicate that this signal is comprised of background contributions from autofluorescence in the sample [14]. In our case, however, the slope of the signal depends highly on the area of the selected ROI, indicating quite clearly that the varying slope is due to a convolution of the onset of the F-CARS peak with the weak residual E-CARS decay.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 66%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The decay time of this smaller peak appears to be dramatically different from the one shown from ROI 1 or that shown in Figure 1(b). The slower decay would typically indicate that this signal is comprised of background contributions from autofluorescence in the sample [14]. In our case, however, the slope of the signal depends highly on the area of the selected ROI, indicating quite clearly that the varying slope is due to a convolution of the onset of the F-CARS peak with the weak residual E-CARS decay.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…It should also be noted that all signals detected with our specific experimental configuration (E-CARS, F-CARS, and the nonresonant background signal) are significantly faster than the instrument response function of our system. The instrument response of our instrument is primarily limited by the timing jitter of the APD detectors and we have characterized this in a recent paper to be ~330 ps at 650 nm [14]. Thus, all decay curves exhibit very similar decay times representative of the instrument response function.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, in highly autofluorescent samples such as plant tissues, the usually weak two-photon fluorescence (also blue shifted with respect to the excitation wavelengths) overwhelms the CARS signal. Consequently, CARS imaging in planta has only been applied to samples with reduced chlorophyll autofluorescence including dried tissues (Zeng et al, 2010;Ding et al, 2012), roots (Ly et al, 2007), and cuticle waxes after they have been stripped away from the leaf (Weissflog et al, 2010).…”
Section: Cars Microscopymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, Huser et al demonstrated the incorporation of CARS with TCSPC and FLIM. 8,9 Because CARS is a nearly instantaneous process (on the order of the laser pulse duration), it is indistinguishable from the instrument response function (IRF) of the TCSPC apparatus and can thus be separated from the nanosecond-timescale fluorescence decay by time-gated analysis. However, efforts to combine FLIM with CARS have been hampered by configurations where signals are collected in the descanned backward direction.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%