*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
Dear Mike,
This is great news! Thanks for listening to your costumers wishes.
I still am of the opinion that each bead size should be on it's own
slide. The "one slide fits all" method (with 6 positions in a straight
line) needs to be discarded, because it is impossible to even reach the
last two positions.
Thanks again!
and best regards,
Pete
On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 16:01 -0500, Mike Ignatius wrote:
> *****
> 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
--
Peter Gabriel Pitrone
Microscope Specialist
Max Planck Institute
for Molecular Cell
Biology and Genetics
Pfotenhauerstr. 108
01307 Dresden
Germany
|
