No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sources and Remedies of Phototoxicity in Live Cell Microscopy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2018
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
During the past decade there has been remarkable progress in understanding the behavior and function of biological cells. Progress was accelerated by the development of microscopic imaging techniques and fluorescent dyes that allowed investigators to visualize dynamic processes within subcellular compartments in heterogenous populations of living cells. These capabilities led to exciting new discoveries in cellular and molecular studies of a wide variety of cell types.
Efforts to study living cells under microscopic conditions are not without problems, however. The most vexing problem is phototoxicity caused by either illumination alone (endogenous toxicity) or illumination of fluorescent dyes loaded into cells (exogenous toxicity). In this report I provide an overview of these general types of toxicity as well as describe recent results that may shed light on how to reduce them.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2000
References
1. Blum, HF “Photodynamic action,” Physiol. Rev. 12:23-55, 1932.Google Scholar
2. Foote, CS “Light, oxygen, and toxicity,” In Pathology of Oxygen, Academic Press, NY, pp. 21-42, 1982.Google Scholar
3. Dougherty, TJ, Gomer, CJ, Henerdson, BW, Jori, G, Kessel, D, Korbelik, M, Moan, J and Peng, Q “Photodynamic therapy,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 90: 889-905, 1998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Jagger, J Introduction to Research in Ultraviolet Photobiology, Prentice- Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1967.Google Scholar
5. Sutherland, JC and Griffin, KP “Absorption spectrum of DNA for wavelengths greater than 300 nm” Radiation Res. 86:399-409, 1981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Sancar, A “DNA excision repair” Ann. Rev. Biochem. 65: 43-81, 1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Earle, WR “Studies upon the effect of light on blood and tissue cells,” J. Exp. Biol. 48: 457-473 and 683-693, 1928.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Parshad, R, Sanford, KK, Jones, GM and Atrone, RE “Fluorescent lightinduced chromosome damage and its prevention in mouse cells in culture,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 75: 1830-1833, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Parshad, R, Taylor, WG, Sanford, KK, Camalier, RF, Gantt, R and Tarone, RE “Fluorescent light-induced chromosome damage in human IMR-90 fibrablasts: role of hydrogen peroxide and related free radicals,” Mutation Res. 73: 115-124, 1980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Hockberger, PE, Skimina, TA, Centonze, VE, Lavin, C, Chu, S, Dadras, S, Reddy, JK and White, JG “Activation of flavin-containing oxidases underlies light-induced production of H2O2 in mammalian cells,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 6255-6260, 1999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Bloom, JA and Webb, WW “Photodamage to intact erythrocyte membranes at high laser intensities: methods of assay and suppression,” J. Histochem. Cytochem. 32: 608-616, 1984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. König, K, So, P, Liang, H, Berns, MW and Tromberg, BJ, “Cell damage by near-IR microbeams,” Nature 377: 20-21, 1995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Xu, C, Zipfel, W, Shear, JB, Williams, RM and Webb, WW “Multiphoton fluorescence excitation: new spectral windows for biological nonlinear microscopy,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA 93: 10763-10768, 1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Hockberger, PE, Wokosin, D, Zetlhofer, HU and Swandulla, D “Ultrafast infrared lasers and H2O2 production in living cells,” IEEE-SPIE Proceedings 3616: 111-117, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Squirrell, JM, Wokosin, DL, White, JG and Bavister, BD “Long-term twophoton fluorescence imaging of mammalian embryos without compromising viability,” Nature Biotech. 17: 763-767, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access