CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

February 2003

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Gregory Holmes <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:57:55 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (14 lines)
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

A debate is brewing as to whether including multiphoton capability on our soon-to-be purchased confocal scope is necessary. 

Given the following parameters: 1) core facility; 2) need to triple label from UV to Red and all points in between; 3) mostly fixed tissue with some potential for cell culture work; just how often would the ability to tune (we're talking the new automated Coherent Chameleon here) excitation really make the world of difference?

I am currently of the opinion that limiting bleaching throughout the entire section, selective excitation and future flexability warrant the $$. Yet I'm suspicious enough to forsee that 2p might not have a worthy cost to benefit ratio.

Opinions?

Greg Holmes
Pennington Biomedical Research Center

ATOM RSS1 RSS2