ArticleNeurophotonics2017
Effects of laser polarization on responses of the fluorescent Ca
Article in Neurophotonics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Polarization effects on the fluorescence emission of zebrafish neurons using light-sheet microscopy.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Quality assessment in light microscopy for routine use through simple tools and robust metrics.The Journal of cell biology · 2022Article
- Orthogonally-polarized excitation for improved two-photon and second-harmonic-generation microscopy, applied to neurotransmitter imaging with GPCR-based sensors.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Effects of excitation light polarization on fluorescence emission in two-photon light-sheet microscopy.Biomedical optics express · 2020Article
- Axo-myelinic neurotransmission: a novel mode of cell signalling in the central nervous system.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laser-scanning optical microscopes generally do not control the polarization of the exciting laser field. We show that laser polarization and imaging mode (confocal versus two photon) exert a profound influence on the ability to detect [Formula: see text] changes in both cultured neurons and living myelin. With two-photon excitation, increasing ellipticity resulted in a [Formula: see text] reduction in resting X-Rhod-1 fluorescence in homogeneous bulk solution, cell cytoplasm, and myelin. In contrast, varying the angle of a linearly polarized laser field only had appreciable effects on dyes that partitioned into myelin in an ordered manner. During injury-induced [Formula: see text] increases, larger ellipticities resulted in a significantly greater injury-induced signal increase in neurons, and particularly in myelin. Indeed, the traditional method of measuring [Formula: see text] changes using one-photon confocal mode with linearly polarized continuous wave laser illumination produced no appreciable X-Rhod-1 signal increase in ischemic myelin, compared to a robust [Formula: see text] fluorescence increase with two-photon excitation and optimized ellipticity with the identical injury paradigm. This underscores the differences in one- versus two-photon excitation and, in particular, the under-appreciated effects of laser polarization on the behavior of certain [Formula: see text] reporters, which may lead to substantial underestimates of the real [Formula: see text] fluctuations in various cellular compartments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.