Best practices and tools for reporting reproducible fluorescence microscopy methods
- PMID: 34099930
- DOI: 10.1038/s41592-021-01156-w
Best practices and tools for reporting reproducible fluorescence microscopy methods
Abstract
Although fluorescence microscopy is ubiquitous in biomedical research, microscopy methods reporting is inconsistent and perhaps undervalued. We emphasize the importance of appropriate microscopy methods reporting and seek to educate researchers about how microscopy metadata impact data interpretation. We provide comprehensive guidelines and resources to enable accurate reporting for the most common fluorescence light microscopy modalities. We aim to improve microscopy reporting, thus improving the quality, rigor and reproducibility of image-based science.
© 2021. Springer Nature America, Inc.
References
-
- Marqués, G., Pengo, T. & Sanders, M. A. Imaging methods are vastly underreported in biomedical research. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55133 (2020).
-
- Jonkman, J., Brown, C. M., Wright, G. D., Anderson, K. I. & North, A. J. Guidance for quantitative confocal microscopy. Nat. Protoc. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0307-7 (2020).
-
- Kiepas, A., Voorand, E., Mubaid, F., Siegel, P. M. & Brown, C. M. Optimizing live-cell fluorescence imaging conditions to minimize phototoxicity. J. Cell Sci. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.242834 (2020).
-
- Wait, E. C., Reiche, M. A. & Chew, T. L. Hypothesis-driven quantitative fluorescence microscopy—the importance of reverse-thinking in experimental design. J. Cell Sci. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.250027 (2020).
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
