Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30295346›Full record

ArticleMicroscopy research and technique2018

Differences between FLIM phasor analyses for data collected with the Becker and Hickl SPC830 card and with the FLIMbox card.

Suman Ranjit, Leonel Malacrida, Enrico Gratton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microscopy research and technique, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Fast fit-free analysis of fluorescence lifetime imaging via deep learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
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

3 authors.

Suman RanjitLaboratory for Fluorescence Dynamics, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.
Leonel MalacridaLaboratory for Fluorescence Dynamics, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.
Enrico GrattonLaboratory for Fluorescence Dynamics, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6450-7391

Funding

Uncover Strategies Used By Biological SystemsP50GM076516 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI LANDER, ARTHUR D · 2007 to 2016
$25.1M
TRD4: Phasor analysisP41GM103540 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI GRATTON, ENRICO · 2012 to 2020
$12.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103540NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM076516NIH HHS NIH P41-GM103540
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The phasor approach to FLIM (Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging Microscopy) is becoming popular due to the powerful fit free analysis and the visualization of the decay at each point in images of cells and tissues. However, although several implementation of the method are offered by manufactures of FLIM accessories for microscopes, the details of the conversion of the decay to phasors at each point in an image requires some consideration. Here, we show that if the decay is not properly acquired, the apparently simple phasor transformation can provide incorrect phasor plots and the results may be misinterpreted. In particular, we show the disagreement in experimental data acquired on the same samples using the two cards (FLIMbox, frequency domain and Becker & Hickl BH 830, time domain) and the effect produced by using the BH 830 card with different settings. This difference in data acquisition translates to the assignment of phasor components calculated using different acquisition parameters. This effect is already present in the original data that are not acquired with the proper parameters for the phasor conversion. We also show that the difference in the resolution of components already exists in the data acquired in the time domain when used with settings that do not allow acquisition of the fluorescence decay on a sufficient large time scale. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: This paper is intended to made researchers aware of some simple requirements for the conversion of time-domain data (typically TCSPC) to phasors. The use of phasors for FLIM analysis has seen a surge of popularity. Since the phasor approach is a fit free method and has a powerful visualization of the data, it appears very simple to use. This paper shows that when the original data in the time domain is not acquired with the proper time range to cover the lifetimes in a sample, the conversion to phasors can produce very erroneous results. These results are appearing more frequently in the literature since many of the manufacturers of FLIM accessories for microscopes are now offering the phasor analysis in their software. Here, we show that the phasor transformation per se cannot correct for the problems with data acquisition and that one is misled to think that the "phasor approach" is a universal fix for the lack of the proper time range for data acquisition.

Indexed as

Becker & HicklFLIMFLIMBoxfluorescencelifetimephasor analysis

Identifiers

PMID30295346
PMCPMC6240382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.