Choosing a live cell imaging microscope around the cells rather than around the optics: why phototoxicity and not resolution limits most long experiments, what a live cell microscope needs in environmental control before any objective is chosen, where a cell imager, a cell imaging system and cell imaging systems sitting inside an incubator beat a full microscope on a bench, when high content screening instruments or a high-content microscope are the right purchase and what their analysis burden actually costs, where a high resolution microscope answers a different question and what microscope analysis software has to do with it, and how to specify autofocus, stage stability and data handling so a multi day run survives to the end

Specifying the system

1. Budget light as if it were a reagent. Every exposure costs the cells something. Decide the minimum signal that answers the question and work down to it with sensitive detection, longer intervals and lower intensity rather than up from a comfortable image. A visibly healthy culture at the end of a run is part of the result.
2. Specify the environment as a system, not an accessory. Temperature, carbon dioxide and humidity must be stable at the sample over the full experiment, not at a controller somewhere nearby. Stage top chambers and full enclosures behave differently, and condensation on the optical path ends runs that were otherwise fine.
3. Test autofocus over the real duration. Focus drift over hours is the commonest cause of an unusable time lapse. Hardware based focus holding is far more reliable than software refocusing, and the only meaningful test is an overnight run on the candidate system with your own vessel.
4. Match the format to the question. A few dishes followed closely is a microscope problem. Many wells sampled repeatedly is a screening problem, and the instruments, the analysis and the cost structure differ completely. Choosing the wrong one means either wasted capability or an experiment that cannot be run.
5. Plan storage and analysis before the first run. Multi position, multi channel time lapse generates data faster than most laboratories expect, and an analysis pipeline arranged after acquisition usually means reacquiring. Decide the storage location, the naming convention and the analysis route in advance.

Stability beats specification

Over a two day acquisition the properties that matter are thermal stability of the whole assembly, the quality of the focus hold and whether the stage returns to the same position each cycle. A microscope with superb optics on an unstable stage produces a sharp image of the wrong field.

Evaluate by running the actual experiment during the demonstration, not by looking at a test slide. Vendors who are confident in their environmental control will agree to this readily.

Data is the recurring cost

Multi channel time lapse across many positions produces large volumes routinely, and the cost is not the disk but the organisation: where files live, how they are named, who can find them next year, and how the analysis that produced a figure can be rerun.

Agree a convention before the first run and apply it from the start. Retrofitting structure onto an existing archive is a project nobody ever completes.

Common questions

How do I tell phototoxicity from biology?

Run an identical experiment at lower illumination and longer intervals, and compare. If the effect weakens as light dose falls, the light was causing it. Including an unimaged control well from the same plate is the simplest version of this check.

Is an incubator mounted imager enough?

For growth, confluence, migration and simple fluorescent readouts across many wells, frequently yes, and the environmental stability is excellent because the instrument sits inside the incubator. For high resolution subcellular work it is not a substitute for a microscope.

What makes high content screening expensive?

The analysis and the data management rather than the instrument. Image analysis development, storage and the people who maintain both usually exceed the hardware cost over the instrument's life, and they are routinely omitted from the business case.

Which vessel should be used?

Whichever has an optical bottom matched to the objective's correction, held flat and stable on the stage. Vessel bottom thickness variation is a real and underappreciated source of focus and aberration problems in long runs.

Browse by service class

• Compare Gene synthesis on advertised prices