Main Menu (Mobile)- Block
- Overview
-
Support Teams
- Overview
- Anatomy and Histology
- Cryo-Electron Microscopy
- Electron Microscopy
- Flow Cytometry
- Gene Targeting and Transgenics
- Immortalized Cell Line Culture
- Integrative Imaging
- Invertebrate Shared Resource
- Janelia Experimental Technology
- Mass Spectrometry
- Media Prep
- Molecular Genomics
- Primary & iPS Cell Culture
- Project Pipeline Support
- Project Technical Resources
- Quantitative Genomics
- Scientific Computing Software
- Scientific Computing Systems
- Viral Tools
- Vivarium
- Open Science
- You + Janelia
- About Us
Main Menu - Block
- Overview
- Anatomy and Histology
- Cryo-Electron Microscopy
- Electron Microscopy
- Flow Cytometry
- Gene Targeting and Transgenics
- Immortalized Cell Line Culture
- Integrative Imaging
- Invertebrate Shared Resource
- Janelia Experimental Technology
- Mass Spectrometry
- Media Prep
- Molecular Genomics
- Primary & iPS Cell Culture
- Project Pipeline Support
- Project Technical Resources
- Quantitative Genomics
- Scientific Computing Software
- Scientific Computing Systems
- Viral Tools
- Vivarium
Abstract
Digital light microscopy provides powerful tools for quantitatively probing the real-time dynamics of subcellular structures. While the power of modern microscopy techniques is undeniable, rigorous record-keeping and quality control are required to ensure that imaging data may be properly interpreted (quality), reproduced (reproducibility), and used to extract reliable information and scientific knowledge which can be shared for further analysis (value). Keeping notes on microscopy experiments and quality control procedures ought to be straightforward, as the microscope is a machine whose components are defined and the performance measurable. Nevertheless, to this date, no universally adopted community-driven specifications exist that delineate the required information about the microscope hardware and acquisition settings (i.e., microscopy “data provenance” metadata) and the minimally accepted calibration metrics (i.e., microscopy quality control metadata) that should be automatically recorded by both commercial microscope manufacturers and customized microscope developers. In the absence of agreed guidelines, it is inherently difficult for scientists to create comprehensive records of imaging experiments and ensure the quality of resulting image data or for manufacturers to incorporate standardized reporting and performance metrics. To add to the confusion, microscopy experiments vary greatly in aim and complexity, ranging from purely descriptive work to complex, quantitative and even sub-resolution studies that require more detailed reporting and quality control measures.
bioRxiv PrePrint
Janelia Authors
