4.5 Article

Effects of laser polarization on responses of the fluorescent Ca2+ indicator X-Rhod-1 in neurons and myelin

期刊

NEUROPHOTONICS
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.NPh.4.2.025002

关键词

myelin; neuron; Ca2+ imaging; confocal; two-photon; polarization

资金

  1. MS Society of Canada, Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  2. Canada Foundation for Innovation and Canada Research Chairs
  3. AI-HS Scientist Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 Ca2+ changes in both cultured neurons and living myelin. With two-photon excitation, increasing ellipticity resulted in a approximate to 50% 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 Ca2+ increases, larger ellipticities resulted in a significantly greater injury-induced signal increase in neurons, and particularly in myelin. Indeed, the traditional method of measuring Ca2+ 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 approximate to 50% 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 Ca2+ reporters, which may lead to substantial underestimates of the real Ca2+ fluctuations in various cellular compartments. (C) 2017 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据