CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

April 2011

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU

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

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Mike Ignatius <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:01:18 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Reply-To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (121 lines)
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Dear Listserve members,

We are pleased to announce that we were able to improve the mounted 
tetraspec beads products described in this colorful email string from over a 
year ago (with some comments extending back to 2005).    

Tertraspec beads are now mounted on the #1.5 coverslips, not the slides.  

It took some doing - overspray from the mask used to find the bead focal 
plane was our biggest unanticipated issue that delayed this so much.  Many 
apologies to anyone out there that remained on backorder.  But the product, 
T14792 and other bead mounted slides, like our intensity and size bead series, 
F36909, are now on the coverslip.  

Frankly they look terrific - wish I could post an image. 

Kind Regards,

Mike Ignatius
Molecular Probes/LifeTechnologies

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:31:10 -0400, Ignatius, Mike 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Dear Listservors,
>
>Thank you all very much for your contributions to this discussion.
>
>We have always used #1.5 coverslips(which range from 160 to 190 
microns).  All biological objectives (except those with correction collars) are 
designed for these. Going to #1 coverslips would only narrow things by 30 
microns at best and defeat the optical correction factor. 
>
>We continue to encourage do-it-yourselfers (DYI) slides as others have 
mentioned, and include protocols to do this.  We are very generous in the 
quantities of beads shipped - you can make dozens to hundreds of slides from 
one vial. However we developed the multiple bead slides as a cost savings to 
the customer needing more than one bead type.  Buying 10 bead preps is 2-5x 
what one of the prepared slides will cost.  
>
>Unfortunately, the prepared slides are a quite a challenges to make in 
quantity.  We have strict QC standards - our scrap rate and thus costs are 
high.  We haven't implemented a QC step with oil objectives because of the 
damage to the slide that would entail.  As mentioned in an earlier post we are 
addressing this going forward (first up mounting on coverslips).  
>
>We will refund anyone that is unable to see their beads on our slides of 
course.  Just call our Tech Support for a credit or replacement, at 800-955-
6288, then selection 2, then selection 4 to request this.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike Ignatius
>
>Molecular Probes/Lifetechnologies
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Confocal Microscopy List 
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Pitrone
>Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:03 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>
>They sell these "test slides" for hundreds of dollars, yet they don't take the 
time to make them right?!?! They should be made with correct coverslips 
chosen for their thickness, deposited on them and then mounted on the glass 
slide... I see that there is a disconnect some where, how much does it cost 
them to produce these slides? 10 bucks maybe...
>
>Pete
>
>On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Guy Cox wrote:
>
>> No, no, it IS the problem!  As Mike Ignatius explained, MP put the beads on 
the slide, not the coverslip, then add mountant and then the coverslip.  If you 
are using a #1.5 coverslip you need to put the beads directly on the 
coverslip.  With the beads on the slide the extra thickness of the mountant 
needs to be corrected for by using a thinner coverslip - #1 or #0 - which 
must be found by trial and error.  (But since I guess they are using very 
reproducible conditions they only need to do the test once).  At least it seems 
they have realized they have a problem.  
>> 
>>                                       Guy
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Confocal Microscopy List 
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MICROSCOPIA 
CONFOCAL y CCD
>> Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:15 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: FocalCheck test slide
>> 
>>> Thanks a lot for your answers.
>> 
>>> Of course I put the slide upside down when using 
>>> inverted microscope and I asked for Molecular 
>>> probes about coverslip and they answered me: 
>>> "The coverslip thickness for the FocalCheck 
>>> prepared slides is 0.13-0.16 mm" It´s no ideal 
>>> but I think that this is not the problem.
>> 
>> M. Teresa
>> 
>> SERVICIO de MICROSCOPIA CONFOCAL y CCD
>> Mª Teresa Seisdedos Domínguez
>> Oscar Hidalgo Blanco
>> Amadeo Cazaña Soto
>> [log in to unmask]
>> Centro Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB) CSIC
>> C/Ramiro de Maeztu, 9
>> 28040 Madrid
>> Phone: + 34-91 8373112 ext.4401
>> Fax: + 34-91 536 04 32  

ATOM RSS1 RSS2