ArticlePloS one2021
Confocal imaging capacity on a widefield microscope using a spatial light modulator.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Widefield Targeted Illumination Microscopy Enables Optically-Sectioned, Motion-Resilient Imaging of Neuronal Fibers and Their Dynamics.Laser & photonics reviews · 2025Article
- Subdiffraction Imaging of Cleared and Expanded Large-Scale Tissues.Chemical & biomedical imaging · 2024Review
- Normalized level set model for segmentation of low-contrast objects in 2- and 3- dimensional images.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- High-throughput submicron-resolution microscopy ofiScience · 2023Article
- Confocal Laser Scanning Imaging of Cell Junctions in Human Colon Cancer Cells.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Contemporary Whole Slide Imaging Devices and Their Applications within the Modern Pathology Department: A Selected Hardware Review.Journal of pathology informatics · 2021Review
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
Confocal microscopes can reject out-of-focus and scattered light; however, widefield microscopes are far more common in biological laboratories due to their accessibility and lower cost. We report confocal imaging capacity on a widefield microscope by adding a spatial light modulator (SLM) and utilizing custom illumination and acquisition methods. We discuss our illumination strategy and compare several procedures for postprocessing the acquired image data. We assessed the performance of this system for rejecting out-of-focus light by comparing images taken at 1.4 NA using our widefield microscope, our SLM-enhanced setup, and a commercial confocal microscope. The optical sectioning capability, assessed on thin fluorescent film, was 0.85 ± 0.04 μm for our SLM-enhanced setup and 0.68 ± 0.04 μm for a confocal microscope, while a widefield microscope exhibited no sectioning capability. We demonstrate our setup by imaging the same set of neurons in C. elegans on widefield, SLM, and confocal microscopes. SLM enhancement greatly reduces background from the cell body, allowing visualization of dim fibers nearby. Our SLM-enhanced setup identified 96% of the dim neuronal fibers seen in confocal images while a widefield microscope only identified 50% of the same fibers. Our microscope add-on represents a very simple (2-component) and inexpensive (<$600) approach to enable widefield microscopes to optically section thick samples.
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.