Where imaging flow cytometry earns its cost: the questions a picture of every event answers that a scatter plot cannot, what the imaging costs in throughput and sensitivity, and the controls an image based gate still needs

What the image actually buys

1. Internalisation, which intensity cannot distinguish. A labelled ligand bound to the surface and one taken into the cell give similar total intensity and completely different biology. An image resolves it directly, and this is the application where imaging cytometry most clearly beats the alternatives.
2. Colocalisation, on thousands of events rather than dozens. Whether two markers occupy the same compartment is a microscopy question answered on a handful of cells. An imaging cytometer answers it with the statistics of a cytometry experiment, which is a genuinely different kind of evidence.
3. Nuclear translocation as a measured quantity. Similarity between a transcription factor's signal and a nuclear stain gives a per-cell translocation score across the whole population, rather than a qualitative impression from selected fields.
4. Doublets, debris and morphology, settled by looking. Scatter based doublet exclusion is inference; an image is evidence. For samples where aggregation is a real problem, being able to see what was gated is worth a great deal of argument avoided.
5. Accept the cost in throughput and sensitivity. Acquisition is slower than a conventional analyser and detector sensitivity is generally lower, so a dim marker that works on a conventional instrument may not work here. Run the panel on the actual instrument before committing a study to it.

Data volume and analysis

Storing an image of every channel for every event produces files far larger than conventional cytometry, and the analysis is image analysis rather than gating. Plan storage and the analysis skills before the instrument arrives.

The feature set the software computes is the analysis, so understanding what each feature measures matters more than the gating strategy. A feature applied without understanding produces a number that looks like a measurement.

Buying against core access

These instruments are expensive, slower to run and need an experienced operator, which makes them a classic core facility instrument. For intermittent work, access plus expert help usually gives better data than ownership.

Buy when the imaging question is continuous and somebody's role includes running it. As with any specialised instrument, the operator is the real purchase.

Designing a panel for it

Leave a channel for a brightfield image and one for a nuclear stain: both are what the image analysis depends on, and a panel that uses every detector for markers gives up the instrument's advantage.

Titrate on this instrument rather than carrying titres over from a conventional analyser. Detection differs, and a reagent titrated elsewhere is not titrated here.

Common questions

What does imaging flow cytometry do that conventional cytometry cannot?

It captures an image of every event, so internalisation, colocalisation, nuclear translocation and morphology become measurable across a whole population rather than inferred from intensity or observed on a few cells.

Is it slower than a conventional analyser?

Yes, substantially, and that is the main practical cost alongside the data volume. For a panel that needs only intensity, a conventional analyser is faster, more sensitive and cheaper to run.

Can it replace a microscope?

No. Spatial resolution is far lower than a microscope's and there is no tissue context. It replaces the need to do microscopy on thousands of cells to get a population statistic.

Do I still need the usual controls?

All of them. Single stained controls for compensation, unstained cells, and a viability dye, exactly as on a conventional instrument. An image does not remove spectral spillover.

Browse by service class

• Compare Gene synthesis on advertised prices