4.5 Article

Designing a large field-of-view two-photon microscope using optical invariant analysis

Journal

NEUROPHOTONICS
Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.NPh.5.2.025001

Keywords

two-photon microscopy; scanning microscopy; optical design; optical invariant; etendue; neurophysiology

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01NS099429, R01NS078223, T32EB014855]
  2. McDonnell Center for Systems Neurosciences at Washington University in St. Louis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conventional two-photon microscopy (TPM) is capable of imaging neural dynamics with subcellular resolution, but it is limited to a field-of-view (FOV) diameter <1 mm. Although there has been recent progress in extending the FOV in TPM, a principled design approach for developing large FOV TPM (LF-TPM) with off-the-shelf components has yet to be established. Therefore, we present a design strategy that depends on analyzing the optical invariant of commercially available objectives, relay lenses, mirror scanners, and emission collection systems in isolation. Components are then selected to maximize the space-bandwidth product of the integrated microscope. In comparison with other LF-TPM systems, our strategy simplifies the sequence of design decisions and is applicable to extending the FOV in any microscope with an optical relay. The microscope we constructed with this design approach can image <1.7-mu m lateral and <28-mu m axial resolution over a 7-mm diameter FOV, which is a 100-fold increase in FOV compared with conventional TPM. As a demonstration of the potential that LF-TPM has on understanding the microarchitecture of the mouse brain across interhemispheric regions, we performed in vivo imaging of both the cerebral vasculature and microglia cell bodies over the mouse cortex. (C) The Authors. Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available