*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

But isn't that exactly what the ABRF is trying to establish?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21477410
http://www.abrf.org/index.cfm/group.show/LightMicroscopyResearchGroup.54.htm#membrs


_____________________________________
Philippe Laissue, PhD, Bioimaging Manager
School of Biological Sciences, Room 4.17
University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK
(0044) 01206 872246 / (0044) 07842 676 456
[log in to unmask]
privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~plaissue


On 16 March 2014 03:43, John Oreopoulos <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Well, that's very interesting. This is exactly the kind of test specimen I
> had in mind for fluorescence microscopy. I had not heard of this company
> before now. Thank you Glenn for pointing them out. I think I'll have to try
> using one of their test slides. What I find most interesting here is
> Argolight's ability to manufacture complex 3D structures with the
> fluorescent brush technology. The question then becomes - what's a
> good/challenging test specimen 3D pattern for confocal microscopy that
> everyone could all agree on?
>
> John Oreopoulos
> Staff Scientist
> Spectral Applied Research Inc.
> A Division of Andor Technology
> Richmond Hill, Ontario
> Canada
> www.spectral.ca
>
>
> On 2014-03-15, at 4:56 PM, Glenn Merrill-Skoloff wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > *****
> >
> > There's a commercially available product that claims to meet most of the
> requirements John lists, below. Has anyone used this slide?
> >
> > http://argolight.com/product-micro/
> >
> > My Best,
> > -- Glenn
> >
> > Glenn Merrill-Skoloff
> > Division of Hemostasis and Thrombosis
> > Director, Intravital Microscopy Core
> >
> > 617-735-4040 (Office)
> > 617-735-4007 (Lab)
> > 617-735-4000 (Fax)
> >
> >
> >
> > From: John Oreopoulos <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>>
> > Reply-To: Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Date: Saturday, March 15, 2014 at 12:35 AM
> > To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Subject: Re: Confocal NEMA?
> >
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > *****
> >
> > Kurt,
> >
> > I'm not familiar with NEMA, but the general topic of
> testing/standardizing confocal sensitivity, resolution, and image quality
> is of great interest to me. If you search the confocal listserver archive,
> you'll find several postings about this. In theory, you could develop a
> standard test for confocal sensitivity, resolution, and image quality, but
> what should the test specimen be? Others have worked on this to some
> extent, and a few names that come to mind are Fred Brakenhoff, Claire
> Brown, Robert Zucker, and Mike Model. I recommend looking up their papers
> to see what sorts of test specimens have been proposed and tried in the
> past. Unfortunately, I don't think there is one single test specimen that
> can be used to determine all instrument parameters of interest
> (sensitivity, resolution - spatial, temporal, spectral-, and image quality,
> etc.).
> >
> > In my mind, an ideal test specimen for confocal fluorescence imaging
> would have the following properties:
> >
> > 1. Be cheap, readily available, and reproducible to a high degree
> > 2. Able to absorb and emit light over broad range of wavelengths
> > 3. Be portable and emit constant intensity (no photobleaching) perhaps
> even with a known number of photons under certain conditions
> > 4. Does not saturate easily, and has a linear response to excitation
> light power
> > 5. Has a known 3D structure of specific shapes/patterns/sizes with a
> high level of precision determined by some other imaging technique
> (electron microscopy for example).
> > 6. Has a refractive index close to water or glass
> >
> > Again, I don't think such a sample exists, but if you can think of one,
> let me know! I think one of the other problems here is: how would you
> define and quantify things like "image quality"? I'm curious how NEMA does
> this for PET. Spatial resolution is a bit more straightforward to quantify,
> although here too there are different ways to define resolution and ways to
> measure it. Sensitivity measurements are complicated by the need to keep
> many other imaging parameters constant when examining day-to-day
> performance/sensitivity of one instrument, or comparing the performance of
> two different instruments - see Jim Pawley's "39 steps".
> >
> > Your question also brings to mind a quote from another very well-written
> article on the topic which I never forget:
> >
> > "This complex relationship between qualitative and quantitative content
> of fluorescence images also expresses itself in the way that commercial
> instruments are assessed. On the one hand it is unavoidable that users
> initially are strongly influenced by the visual quality of the images
> presented by the instrument. On the other hand the longer term scientific
> value of the instrument depends crucially both on the quality of the visual
> information and the effectiveness with which it can be reduced for
> quantitative analysis... The increased complexity of a fluorescent image
> (in terms of the number of dimensions that can be measured), and the
> variability of sample preparation, makes it less easy to assess
> quantitatively the quality of the image. This may seem a surprising, or at
> least somewhat bleak, assessment. But consider this: In the 20 years or
> more since introduction of laser scanning confocal microscopes it has not
> been feasible, from published data, to assess how these systems compare (in
> terms of absolute units associated with measurements). No one can assert
> with confidence that instrument A in use in 1990 has better or worse
> sensitivity than instrument B operating in 2006. There is, therefore, a
> paramount need for standardized test samples and procedures for their use."
> >
> > -taken from:
> > Dixon, A., T. Heinlein, and R. Wolleschensky, Need for standardization
> of fluorescence measurements from the instrument manufacturer's view
> standardization and quality assurance in fluorescence measurements ii.
> 2008. 6: p. 3-24.
> >
> > I find the second last statement above quite frustrating, especially
> from the point of view of someone who works in the industry. I can tell you
> that the experience of demoing a microscope system to a potential customer
> often goes something like this: The potential customer prepares a typical
> biological specimen that they are familiar with from experience and then
> images of this specimen are captured with the demo system. These images are
> then compared to a similar set of images that were produced on another
> competing instrument (maybe - sometimes comparison images are not
> available). Usually there are statements made to the effect of "yes/no, the
> images on this instrument look better/worse, therefore I should buy/decline
> instrument A/B". I think anyone with a good imagination can figure out that
> this is a very subjective way to compare instrument performance and that
> there are a lot of potential pitfalls involved that might bias the
> assessment one way or another. I'm not saying this isn't a good method to
> judge an microscope's general imaging performance. Indeed, you should
> always take a prospective microscope system out for a "test drive", but a
> more quantitative test that doesn't solely depend on the opinion of how
> "good" an image looks would be better for everyone in my opinion.
> >
> > And Kurt, supposing a good set of text specimens and protocols were
> developed - how could we all come to agree on them? Who would set the
> standards and govern them for microscopy? Surely the industry players would
> have much to say (or dispute!) about that. Again, as stated above, there is
> a paramount need in microscopy for standardized test samples and
> procedures. It's a cause I certainly would be willing to devote time to
> were there an organized and concerted effort to make it happen.
> >
> > Curious to hear other people's thoughts on this.
> >
> >
> > John Oreopoulos
> > Staff Scientist
> > Spectral Applied Research Inc.
> > A Division of Andor Technology
> > Richmond Hill, Ontario
> > Canada
> > www.spectral.ca
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2014-03-14, at 1:14 PM, Kurt Anderson wrote:
> >
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > *****
> > hi all,
> > anyone who has worked in clinical or pre-clinical imaging will be
> familiar with the National Electrical Manufacturer's Association, or NEMA.
> > they are like a north american DIN, in that they set standards for the
> specification and performance of electrical equipment ranging from conduit
> to clinical PET scanners.
> > see here<
> http://www.nema.org/Standards/Pages/All-Standards-by-Product.aspx> for an
> interesting list of standards.
> > recently i've been involved in using NEMA protocol NU4-2008 to
> characterise a pre-clinical PET scanner.
> > among other things, the protocol specifies the samples and methods to be
> used for quantification of the instrument sensitivity, resolution, and
> image quality.
> > my naive question for a friday afternoon is this: why dont we have a
> NEMA standard for confocal microscopes?
> > is anyone aware of this issue ever having been discussed by NEMA?
> > cheers
> > kurt
> > .
> > Prof. Kurt I. Anderson
> > Tumor Cell Migration Lab and
> > Beatson Advanced Imaging Resource (BAIR)
> > The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research
> > Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Glasgow  G61 1BD
> > * Direct Line +44 (0) 141 330 2864
> > * Fax                +44 (0) 141 942 6521
> > * E-mail
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > A company limited by guarantee; Registered in Scotland No 84170; A
> Registered Scottish Charity No SC006106
> > The information contained in this communication may be privileged and
> confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee
> designated above. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure,
> reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> transmission in error please would you be kind enough to inform us.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > This message is intended for the use of the person(s) to whom it may be
> addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or
> otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not
> the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of
> this information is prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
> please permanently delete it and immediately notify the sender. Thank you.
>