Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28362435›Full record

ReviewNature methods2017

A guide to light-sheet fluorescence microscopy for multiscale imaging.

Rory M Power, Jan Huisken

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature methods, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 291 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
291citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

291 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Space-time light-sheet microscopy.Nature communications · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Polarization-engineered aberration-resilient light sheet microscopy.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

231 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rory M PowerMax Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany.
Jan HuiskenMax Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7250-3756

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact of light-sheet fluorescence microscopy (LSFM) is visible in fields as diverse as developmental and cell biology, anatomical science, biophysics and neuroscience. Although adoption among biologists has been steady, LSFM has not displaced more traditional imaging methods despite its often-superior performance. One reason for this is that the field has largely conformed to a do-it-yourself ethic, although the challenges of big image data cannot be overstated. With the most powerful implementations of LSFM available to only a few groups worldwide, the scope of this technique is unnecessarily limited. Here we elucidate the key developments and define a simple set of underlying principles governing LSFM. In doing so, we aim to clarify the decisions to be made for those who wish to develop and use bespoke light-sheet systems and to assist in identifying the best approaches to apply this powerful technique to myriad biological questions.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological Science DisciplinesCellsMicroscopy, FluorescenceMolecular Imaging

Identifiers

PMID28362435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.