Filter
Associated Lab
- Aguilera Castrejon Lab (16) Apply Aguilera Castrejon Lab filter
- Ahrens Lab (63) Apply Ahrens Lab filter
- Aso Lab (40) Apply Aso Lab filter
- Baker Lab (38) Apply Baker Lab filter
- Betzig Lab (112) Apply Betzig Lab filter
- Beyene Lab (13) Apply Beyene Lab filter
- Bock Lab (17) Apply Bock Lab filter
- Branson Lab (52) Apply Branson Lab filter
- Card Lab (41) Apply Card Lab filter
- Cardona Lab (63) Apply Cardona Lab filter
- Chklovskii Lab (13) Apply Chklovskii Lab filter
- Clapham Lab (14) Apply Clapham Lab filter
- Cui Lab (19) Apply Cui Lab filter
- Darshan Lab (12) Apply Darshan Lab filter
- Dennis Lab (1) Apply Dennis Lab filter
- Dickson Lab (46) Apply Dickson Lab filter
- Druckmann Lab (25) Apply Druckmann Lab filter
- Dudman Lab (50) Apply Dudman Lab filter
- Eddy/Rivas Lab (30) Apply Eddy/Rivas Lab filter
- Egnor Lab (11) Apply Egnor Lab filter
- Espinosa Medina Lab (19) Apply Espinosa Medina Lab filter
- Feliciano Lab (7) Apply Feliciano Lab filter
- Fetter Lab (41) Apply Fetter Lab filter
- Fitzgerald Lab (29) Apply Fitzgerald Lab filter
- Freeman Lab (15) Apply Freeman Lab filter
- Funke Lab (38) Apply Funke Lab filter
- Gonen Lab (91) Apply Gonen Lab filter
- Grigorieff Lab (62) Apply Grigorieff Lab filter
- Harris Lab (60) Apply Harris Lab filter
- Heberlein Lab (94) Apply Heberlein Lab filter
- Hermundstad Lab (26) Apply Hermundstad Lab filter
- Hess Lab (77) Apply Hess Lab filter
- Ilanges Lab (2) Apply Ilanges Lab filter
- Jayaraman Lab (46) Apply Jayaraman Lab filter
- Ji Lab (33) Apply Ji Lab filter
- Johnson Lab (6) Apply Johnson Lab filter
- Kainmueller Lab (19) Apply Kainmueller Lab filter
- Karpova Lab (14) Apply Karpova Lab filter
- Keleman Lab (13) Apply Keleman Lab filter
- Keller Lab (76) Apply Keller Lab filter
- Koay Lab (18) Apply Koay Lab filter
- Lavis Lab (148) Apply Lavis Lab filter
- Lee (Albert) Lab (34) Apply Lee (Albert) Lab filter
- Leonardo Lab (23) Apply Leonardo Lab filter
- Li Lab (28) Apply Li Lab filter
- Lippincott-Schwartz Lab (168) Apply Lippincott-Schwartz Lab filter
- Liu (Yin) Lab (6) Apply Liu (Yin) Lab filter
- Liu (Zhe) Lab (61) Apply Liu (Zhe) Lab filter
- Looger Lab (138) Apply Looger Lab filter
- Magee Lab (49) Apply Magee Lab filter
- Menon Lab (18) Apply Menon Lab filter
- Murphy Lab (13) Apply Murphy Lab filter
- O'Shea Lab (6) Apply O'Shea Lab filter
- Otopalik Lab (13) Apply Otopalik Lab filter
- Pachitariu Lab (47) Apply Pachitariu Lab filter
- Pastalkova Lab (18) Apply Pastalkova Lab filter
- Pavlopoulos Lab (19) Apply Pavlopoulos Lab filter
- Pedram Lab (15) Apply Pedram Lab filter
- Podgorski Lab (16) Apply Podgorski Lab filter
- Reiser Lab (51) Apply Reiser Lab filter
- Riddiford Lab (44) Apply Riddiford Lab filter
- Romani Lab (43) Apply Romani Lab filter
- Rubin Lab (143) Apply Rubin Lab filter
- Saalfeld Lab (63) Apply Saalfeld Lab filter
- Satou Lab (16) Apply Satou Lab filter
- Scheffer Lab (36) Apply Scheffer Lab filter
- Schreiter Lab (67) Apply Schreiter Lab filter
- Sgro Lab (21) Apply Sgro Lab filter
- Shroff Lab (30) Apply Shroff Lab filter
- Simpson Lab (23) Apply Simpson Lab filter
- Singer Lab (80) Apply Singer Lab filter
- Spruston Lab (93) Apply Spruston Lab filter
- Stern Lab (156) Apply Stern Lab filter
- Sternson Lab (54) Apply Sternson Lab filter
- Stringer Lab (35) Apply Stringer Lab filter
- Svoboda Lab (135) Apply Svoboda Lab filter
- Tebo Lab (33) Apply Tebo Lab filter
- Tervo Lab (9) Apply Tervo Lab filter
- Tillberg Lab (21) Apply Tillberg Lab filter
- Tjian Lab (64) Apply Tjian Lab filter
- Truman Lab (88) Apply Truman Lab filter
- Turaga Lab (50) Apply Turaga Lab filter
- Turner Lab (37) Apply Turner Lab filter
- Vale Lab (7) Apply Vale Lab filter
- Voigts Lab (3) Apply Voigts Lab filter
- Wang (Meng) Lab (18) Apply Wang (Meng) Lab filter
- Wang (Shaohe) Lab (25) Apply Wang (Shaohe) Lab filter
- Wu Lab (9) Apply Wu Lab filter
- Zlatic Lab (28) Apply Zlatic Lab filter
- Zuker Lab (25) Apply Zuker Lab filter
Associated Project Team
- CellMap (12) Apply CellMap filter
- COSEM (3) Apply COSEM filter
- FIB-SEM Technology (2) Apply FIB-SEM Technology filter
- Fly Descending Interneuron (10) Apply Fly Descending Interneuron filter
- Fly Functional Connectome (14) Apply Fly Functional Connectome filter
- Fly Olympiad (5) Apply Fly Olympiad filter
- FlyEM (53) Apply FlyEM filter
- FlyLight (49) Apply FlyLight filter
- GENIE (45) Apply GENIE filter
- Integrative Imaging (3) Apply Integrative Imaging filter
- Larval Olympiad (2) Apply Larval Olympiad filter
- MouseLight (18) Apply MouseLight filter
- NeuroSeq (1) Apply NeuroSeq filter
- ThalamoSeq (1) Apply ThalamoSeq filter
- Tool Translation Team (T3) (26) Apply Tool Translation Team (T3) filter
- Transcription Imaging (49) Apply Transcription Imaging filter
Publication Date
- 2025 (92) Apply 2025 filter
- 2024 (221) Apply 2024 filter
- 2023 (160) Apply 2023 filter
- 2022 (193) Apply 2022 filter
- 2021 (194) Apply 2021 filter
- 2020 (196) Apply 2020 filter
- 2019 (202) Apply 2019 filter
- 2018 (232) Apply 2018 filter
- 2017 (217) Apply 2017 filter
- 2016 (209) Apply 2016 filter
- 2015 (252) Apply 2015 filter
- 2014 (236) Apply 2014 filter
- 2013 (194) Apply 2013 filter
- 2012 (190) Apply 2012 filter
- 2011 (190) Apply 2011 filter
- 2010 (161) Apply 2010 filter
- 2009 (158) Apply 2009 filter
- 2008 (140) Apply 2008 filter
- 2007 (106) Apply 2007 filter
- 2006 (92) Apply 2006 filter
- 2005 (67) Apply 2005 filter
- 2004 (57) Apply 2004 filter
- 2003 (58) Apply 2003 filter
- 2002 (39) Apply 2002 filter
- 2001 (28) Apply 2001 filter
- 2000 (29) Apply 2000 filter
- 1999 (14) Apply 1999 filter
- 1998 (18) Apply 1998 filter
- 1997 (16) Apply 1997 filter
- 1996 (10) Apply 1996 filter
- 1995 (18) Apply 1995 filter
- 1994 (12) Apply 1994 filter
- 1993 (10) Apply 1993 filter
- 1992 (6) Apply 1992 filter
- 1991 (11) Apply 1991 filter
- 1990 (11) Apply 1990 filter
- 1989 (6) Apply 1989 filter
- 1988 (1) Apply 1988 filter
- 1987 (7) Apply 1987 filter
- 1986 (4) Apply 1986 filter
- 1985 (5) Apply 1985 filter
- 1984 (2) Apply 1984 filter
- 1983 (2) Apply 1983 filter
- 1982 (3) Apply 1982 filter
- 1981 (3) Apply 1981 filter
- 1980 (1) Apply 1980 filter
- 1979 (1) Apply 1979 filter
- 1976 (2) Apply 1976 filter
- 1973 (1) Apply 1973 filter
- 1970 (1) Apply 1970 filter
- 1967 (1) Apply 1967 filter
Type of Publication
4079 Publications
Showing 2931-2940 of 4079 resultsNeurons relevant to a particular behavior are often widely dispersed across the brain. To record activity in groups of individual neurons that might be distributed across large distances, neuroscientists and optical engineers have been developing a new type of microscope called a mesoscope. Mesoscopes have high spatial resolution and a large field of view. This Q&A will discuss this exciting new technology, highlighting a particular instrument, the two-photon random access mesoscope (2pRAM).
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To automatically assess hair growth during cosmetic trials, incorporating parameters such as anagen-to-telogen rate, growth rate, and especially hair diameter. METHODS: We designed and qualified a new and automatic phototrichogram system based on a high-resolution DSLR camera system (theoretical resolution of 2.557 μm/pixel) and modular macrolens system with fixed focus, combined with a trainable pattern recognition software for automated analysis. RESULTS: We improved the standard routine for dermatological phototrichogram technique to overcome inaccuracy in thickness measurements due to hair swelling by using an alternative immersion fluid, and increased the effective resolution for hair size and thickness measurement to <4 μm. After having qualified manual measurements as gold standard for the determination of hair diameters, we established a new trainable automatic picture analysis software able to locate and measure individual hairs in length and thickness even in picture series taken from the same skin area at different time points. Comparisons between manual and automatic measurements of the same hairs showed a >90% correlation, and by comparing the automatic results with manual measurements of the same images without individual hair annotation, we could find a correlation of at least 80%. CONCLUSION: According to the results and findings generated in this qualification study, we have a reliable tool now that enables us to test cosmetic products for hair treatment in a highly automated way with a sufficient degree of precision and accuracy to detect even small changes in hair diameter during cosmetic trials.
Post-translational histone modifications are highly correlated with transcriptional activity, but the relative timing of these marks and their dynamic interplay during gene regulation remains controversial. To shed light on this problem and clarify the connections between histone modifications and transcription, we demonstrate how FabLEM (Fab-based Live Endogenous Modification labeling) can be used to simultaneously track histone H3 Lysine 9 acetylation (H3K9ac) together with RNA polymerase II Serine 2 and Serine 5 phosphorylation (RNAP2 Ser2ph/Ser5ph) in single living cells and their progeny. We provide a detailed description of the FabLEM methodology, including helpful tips for preparing and loading fluorescently conjugated antigen binding fragments (Fab) into cells for optimal results. We also introduce simple procedures for analyzing and visualizing FabLEM data, including color-coded scatterplots to track correlations between modifications through the cell cycle and temporal cross-correlation analysis to dissect modification dynamics. Using these methods, we find significant correlations that span cell generations, with a relatively strong correlation between H3K9ac and Ser5ph that appears to peak a few hours before mitosis and may reflect the bookmarking of genes for efficient re-initiation following mitosis. The techniques we have developed are broadly applicable and should help clarify how histone modifications dynamically contribute to gene regulation.
Quantifying molecular dynamics within the context of complex cellular morphologies is essential toward understanding the inner workings and function of cells. Fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) is one of the most broadly applied techniques to measure the reaction diffusion dynamics of molecules in living cells. FRAP measurements typically restrict themselves to single-plane image acquisition within a subcellular-sized region of interest due to the limited temporal resolution and undesirable photobleaching induced by 3D fluorescence confocal or widefield microscopy. Here, an experimental and computational pipeline combining lattice light sheet microscopy, FRAP, and numerical simulations, offering rapid and minimally invasive quantification of molecular dynamics with respect to 3D cell morphology is presented. Having the opportunity to accurately measure and interpret the dynamics of molecules in 3D with respect to cell morphology has the potential to reveal unprecedented insights into the function of living cells.
The distinctive distributions of proteins within subcellular compartments both at steady state and during signaling events have essential roles in cell function. Here we describe a method for delineating the complex arrangement of proteins within subcellular structures visualized using point-localization superresolution (PL-SR) imaging. The approach, called pair correlation photoactivated localization microscopy (PC-PALM), uses a pair-correlation algorithm to precisely identify single molecules in PL-SR imaging data sets, and it is used to decipher quantitative features of protein organization within subcellular compartments, including the existence of protein clusters and the size, density and number of proteins in these clusters. We provide a step-by-step protocol for PC-PALM, illustrating its analysis capability for four plasma membrane proteins tagged with photoactivatable GFP (PAGFP). The experimental steps for PC-PALM can be carried out in 3 d and the analysis can be done in ∼6-8 h. Researchers need to have substantial experience in single-molecule imaging and statistical analysis to conduct the experiments and carry out this analysis.
Progressive, technological achievements in the quantitative fluorescence microscopy field are allowing researches from many different areas to start unraveling the dynamic intricacies of biological processes inside living cells. From super-resolution microscopy techniques to tracking of individual proteins, fluorescence microscopy is changing our perspective on how the cell works. Fortunately, a growing number of research groups are exploring single-molecule studies in living cells. However, no clear consensus exists on several key aspects of the technique such as image acquisition conditions, or analysis of the obtained data. Here, we describe a detailed approach to perform single-molecule tracking (SMT) of transcription factors in living cells to obtain key binding characteristics, namely their residence time and bound fractions. We discuss different types of fluorophores, labeling density, microscope, cameras, data acquisition, and data analysis. Using the glucocorticoid receptor as a model transcription factor, we compared alternate tags (GFP, mEOS, HaloTag, SNAP-tag, CLIP-tag) for potential multicolor applications. We also examine different methods to extract the dissociation rates and compare them with simulated data. Finally, we discuss several challenges that this exciting technique still faces.
Pointillistic based super-resolution techniques, such as photoactivated localization microscopy (PALM), involve multiple cycles of sequential activation, imaging, and precise localization of single fluorescent molecules. A super-resolution image, having nanoscopic structural information, is then constructed by compiling all the image sequences. Because the final image resolution is determined by the localization precision of detected single molecules and their density, accurate image reconstruction requires imaging of biological structures labeled with fluorescent molecules at high density. In such image datasets, stochastic variations in photon emission and intervening dark states lead to uncertainties in identification of single molecules. This, in turn, prevents the proper utilization of the wealth of information on molecular distribution and quantity. A recent strategy for overcoming this problem is pair-correlation analysis applied to PALM. Using rigorous statistical algorithms to estimate the number of detected proteins, this approach allows the spatial organization of molecules to be quantitatively described.
We address the problem of explaining the decision process of deep neural network classifiers on images, which is of particular importance in biomedical datasets where class-relevant differences are not always obvious to a human observer. Our proposed solution, termed quantitative attribution with counterfactuals (QuAC), generates visual explanations that highlight class-relevant differences by attributing the classifier decision to changes of visual features in small parts of an image. To that end, we train a separate network to generate counterfactual images (i.e., to translate images between different classes). We then find the most important differences using novel discriminative attribution methods. Crucially, QuAC allows scoring of the attribution and thus provides a measure to quantify and compare the fidelity of a visual explanation. We demonstrate the suitability and limitations of QuAC on two datasets: (1) a synthetic dataset with known class differences, representing different levels of protein aggregation in cells and (2) an electron microscopy dataset of D. melanogaster synapses with different neurotransmitters, where QuAC reveals so far unknown visual differences. We further discuss how QuAC can be used to interrogate mispredictions to shed light on unexpected inter-class similarities and intra-class differences.
Quantitative methods and approaches have been playing an increasingly important role in cell biology in recent years. They involve making accurate measurements to test a predefined hypothesis in order to compare experimental data with predictions generated by theoretical models, an approach that has benefited physicists for decades. Building quantitative models in experimental biology not only has led to discoveries of counterintuitive phenomena but has also opened up novel research directions. To make the biological sciences more quantitative, we believe a two-pronged approach needs to be taken. First, graduate training needs to be revamped to ensure biology students are adequately trained in physical and mathematical sciences and vice versa. Second, students of both the biological and the physical sciences need to be provided adequate opportunities for hands-on engagement with the methods and approaches necessary to be able to work at the intersection of the biological and physical sciences. We present the annual Physiology Course organized at the Marine Biological Laboratory (Woods Hole, MA) as a case study for a hands-on training program that gives young scientists the opportunity not only to acquire the tools of quantitative biology but also to develop the necessary thought processes that will enable them to bridge the gap between these disciplines.