Hostname: page-component-599cfd5f84-9hh9z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T07:44:12.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Image intersification applied to biological problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2009

George T. Reynolds
George T. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many important types of observations in biological research, the information provided by the specimens is in the form of photons-quanta of visible light, u.v., or X-rays. The process of observation becomes one of recording this information in useful form, with as high an efficiency as possible. The problem becomes particularly important when for some reason or other the total number or rate of quanta provided by the specimen is small. Examples of such limitations are included in the following: (i) Processes permitting only low-intensity illumination in order not to interfere with the biological processes under observation. (ii) Processes changing very rapidly and requiring rapid sequence recording. (iii) Processes providing only a limited number of photons per event, such as bioluminescence. (iv) Processes in which radioactive tracers are utilized, and observation of radioactivity is desirable at low specific activity or within short time intervals. (v) X-ray diffraction processes where the specimen is weakly diffracting or where the X-ray intensity must be kept low in order not to damage the specimen. (vi) Processes involving the observation of fluorescence, where the intensity is low because of limitations on the amount of tagging material.

Type
Research Article
Information
Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , August 1972 , pp. 295 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Batey, P. H. & Slark, N. A. (1966). Performance of the transmission secondary electron image intensifier. Adv. Electronics Electron Phys. 22A, 63–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. L., Buck, T. M., Gibson, W. M., Kerr, R. W. & Lie, H. P. (1970). Position sensitive particle detection by means of multiple diode arrays. IEEE Trans. Nuci. Sci. NS-17 (3), 329–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calleja, G. B. & Reynolds, G. T. (1968). Image intensification of a luminescent system used as a cytochemical probe. Technical Report, no. 6, AEC Contract AT(30–1)-3406, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Catchpole, C. E. (1971). The channel image intensifier. In Photoelectronic Imaging Devices, ed. by Biberman, and Nudelman, . New York-London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, R. & Reynolds, G. T. (1967). The subcellular origin of bioluminescence in Noctiluca miliaris. J. Gen. Physiol. 50, 1429–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goetz, G. W. (1966). Secondary electron conduction (SEC) and its application to photo-electronic image devices. Adv. Electronics Electron Phys. 22A, 219–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, F. E., Miller, J. & Reynolds, G. T. (1969). Subunit coordination in the firefly light organ. Biol. Bull. Mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 137 (3), 447–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manley, B. W., Guest, A. & Holmshaw, R. T. (1969). Channel multiplier plates for imaging applications. Adv. Electronics Electron Phys. 28A, 471–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, J. G. & Reynolds, G. T. (1970). Luminescence and related fluorescence in coelenterates. Biol. Bull. Mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 139 (2), 430–1.Google Scholar
Randall, R. P. (1970). Sources of multi-electron emission in very low dark current image intensifiers. IEEE Trans. Nuci. Sci. NS-17 (3), 323–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, G. T. (1966 a). Sensitivity of an image intensifier film system. Appl. Opt. 5, 577–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, G. T. (1966 b). Secondary electron multiplication in image intensifier dynode structures. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. NS-13, 81–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, G. T. (1968 a). Image intensification applied to microscope systems. Adv. Opt. Electron Microsc. 2, 1–40.Google Scholar
Reynolds, G. T. (1968 b). Scintillomicroscope for radioactive tracer detection. Rev. Scient. Instrum. 39, 298–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, G. T. (1968 c). X-ray image intensification. Technical Report, no. 8, AEC Contract AT(30–1)-3406, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Reynolds, G. T. (1970). Mechanical stimulation of bioluminescence by means of a piezoelectric suction pipette. Biophys J. 10, 132A.Google Scholar
Reynolds, G. T. & Botos, P. (1970). Image intensification and magnetic tape recording system for microscopic observations of bioluminescence and fluorescence. Biol. Bull. Mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 139 (2), 432.Google Scholar
Reynolds, G. T., Hastings, J. W. & Nagel, R. S. (1969). Cellular distribution of luminescent flashes in Gonyaulax mechanically stimulated by a piezoelectric suction pipette. Biol. Bull. Mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 137, (2), 411.Google Scholar
Strunk, B. L., Reynolds, G. T. & Senft, A. W. (1967). Scintillomicroscopic observations of L-proline-U-C14 uptake in Schistosoma mansoni. Biol. Bull. Mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 133 (2), 487–88.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. G., Petley, C. H. & Freeman, K. G. (1969). Television at low light-levels by coupling an image intensifier to a plumbicon. Adv. Electronics Electron Phys. 28B, 837–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar