Posts archived in Hardware

rg

I find WPI’s Kwik-Cast handy for some things around the lab. When we were modest users, the price didn’t bother me too much. However, when we started going through so much of it, I wondered if there was a way to buy it that fit our consumption level a bit better.

Both of those pots together were about $50. (Body Double Fast Set – Trial Size, Reynolds Advanced Materials)

rg2

These are the double-barreled syringes and mixing tips I bought. They’re from this company.
2mm x 8 Element, Needle Tip
qty. 1-99 – $0.91 each (WPI charges about $2.90 per tip, about 318% more)
qty. 100+ – $0.637 each (Buy 100 for $63.70. From WPI, 30 tips cost $87.00, 455% more)

4B19 Double barreled syringe
qty. 1-99 – $1.953 each
qty. 100+ – $1.367 each

Here, you can see below that the WPI Kwik-Cast kit uses the same syringes and mixing tips, at least as far as I can tell.

kwik-cast, click for source

From WPI, each of these syringes (with contents) is $85.

So you can buy the DIY stuff above ($50), 50 tips ($9.10 * 5 = $45.50), and 10 syringes ($19.53) for a grand total of $115.03. This would cost $850 + ($29 * 5 = $145) = $995.00 from WPI.

Plus, with the DIY way, you’ll still have the vast majority of your silicone elastomer left over from the $50 kit. I’m not sure I’ll ever run out.

The drawback of the DIY way is that you have to fill your own syringes, or have an undergrad do it for you. I used a couple of 5 mL syringes, and it took maybe a minute or two to do one syringe.

feedly

Here’s a follow up on the previous post about alternatives to Google Reader (which is being shut down).

Patrick Mineault commented that Feedly is looking good. I agree. Basic functionality is smooth and somewhat intuitive; layout and design are excellent.

Read the rest of this entry »

clarity

Post by Jeffrey Stirman

The opacity of the brain is one barrier to optically imaging individual neurons and their connections. Scattering in tissue is the main reason tissue is not transparent; absorption also plays a role but much less so. Perfusing tissue with a substance to match the index of refraction throughout the preparation (and thus decrease scattering) is one approach, and although index matching isn’t a new strategy, just getting rid of the membranes is. The most recent method to achieving tissue transparency (Chung et al., 2013), takes this approach to great effect.

A nice paper discussing tissue transparency is Johnsen and Widder, 1999. Scattering in tissue is dominated by Mie scattering which is the scattering of light by particles of a size on the same order as the wavelength of light (Rayleigh scattering is for particles much smaller than the wavelength): cells, nuclei, and organelles all fit in this category. Furthermore, the lipid membranes encasing these structures have a significantly different refractive index (~1.5) than the surrounding medium. It is this change in refractive index of these particles that lead to scattering. Simply, as the difference in refractive index between the surrounding medium and the object increases, so too does the scattering. The relationship with wavelength can be complicated and range from about lambda^-4 to lambda^0.2 (lambda = the wavelength of light used) depending on the size of the particle, but overall the higher the wavelength, the less scattering (one of the benefits of 2-photon imaging).

table

A couple of nice papers from Mourant et al. (1998 & 2000) discuss and explore in more detail the dominant scattering centers in tissue. They found that at small angles, most of the scattering was dominated by the nucleus and at larger angles the smaller structures such as mitochondria. One conclusion from all this is perhaps it might not be sufficient to homogenize the refractive index of the tissue if those lipid membranes still exist (as earlier attempts had done). In fact, the best way to achieve tissue clarity for imaging is to remove the objects that cause the scattering. This is exactly what Kwanghun Chung did! By first crosslinking most of the proteins, DNA, and other biological entities (not the lipids), then cross-linking them all in a hydrogel structure, he was able to use a detergent extraction process (electric field assisted) to remove the lipid membranes and thereby removing the cause of most of the scattering centers. Since multiple rounds of antibody staining can be performed on the cleared tissue, this process seems to have achieved clarity while preserving most of the interesting biology.

bibliogo

Google Reader is going to be shut down on July 1.
If you use Reader, here’s what to do:

Step 1: Export all of your subscriptions from Google Reader
(takes less than 1 minute)

Try these directions. It’s easy.

Step 2: Start using an alternative, and import your old Google Reader stuff.
(can take as little as 2 minutes, once you decide on one)

I’m trying Bibliogo right now, and I like it so far. It’s geared towards academics, so it’s a good fit for the Labrigger audience. It opens webpages within the window in a nice way, making it fairly quick to flip back and forth between RSS entries and the actual webpages. Even Google Reader never did that very well.

But there are other alternatives.
WordPress has a Google Reader-like feature.
SmashingReader looks nice.
If you have your own server, you might like Fever or PrivateOSS.

dextrans in gel

Post by Christian Wilms

I’ll admit it: I’m lazy. When I use a calcium indicator and need to know its physico-chemical properties, I like to simply look it up in the manufacturer’s catalogue or website. Of course I don’t expect those values to be perfect, but close enough for most purposes. Turns out that isn’t the way things are.

While looking into using a dextran conjugate of OGB-1 some time ago I stumbled over the first problem: depending on where on the Invitrogen website one looks, you find two different K_d values: 165 nM and 265 nM. Different, but still both clearly “high affinity”. Things got a little more complicated when I received the indicator and discovered that the K_d specified on the vial was 1180 nM — not really high affinity. Running a calibration experiment revealed more: instead of a single K_d, the indicator appeared to have 2, one medium affinity around 300 nM and one low affinity at well over 1000 nM. Another thing I noticed was the dynamic range of the indicator was reduced from 14-fold for the free salt form to just above 5-fold for the dextran conjugate, which also wasn’t specified in the documentation. I have since then found that these values differ from batch to batch. All of this applies to dextran conjugates of other indicators as well.

Similarly, “anionic” fluorescent dextran conjugates aren’t always negatively charged. Running a selection of three different Alexa-Fluor conjugates on an electrophoresis gel reveals that they are all mixtures (which is not surprising) and in some cases the cationic forms dominate (which *is* surprising; e.g. Alexa-546 in picture).

More worrying, as it applies to the free salt form of a calcium indicator, was an observation mentioned in a recent publication by Faas and Mody:

“We have to make an extremely important note of caution here: over the past 8 years, we have determined the properties of each individual factory batch of OGB-5N we used, and found that their properties vary considerably (see Table 1). Although the properties within a batch are very stable, we found that between batches the Kd varied from 34 to 46 ?M and the Fratio (Fmax/Fmin) varied from 10 to 40.”

(Faas & Mody; BBA-General Subjects, 1820(80): 1195–1204)

While the variability in itself is unpleasant, what I find to be really problematic is that these things appears to be ignored by suppliers and researchers need to work them out for themselves. At the very least one would expect catalogues to specify ranges for both K_ds and gain factors. Ideally, the correct values for the current batch should also be specified. Until then: if it’s even mildly important, don’t trust the specs.

0 comments

More references

BH

Wolfgang Becker just gave a nice talk at the Berkeley Advanced Imaging Methods meeting.

I should add the Becker-Hinkl literature to the list of online references.

Previously
Catalogs as textbooks
Troubleshooting fluorescence microscopy

There are a lot of online, open course materials, e.g. MIT’s OpenCourseWare and Open.Michigan. OEDB.org’s Open Courses section is a bit of an aggregator and a good place to start any searches for online courses. Also, Open Textbooks specifically link to online, free, open textbooks.

(source for image above)
Hat tip to Daniel Strauss.

1 comments

Photoswitchable GECI

Many red fluorescent proteins go through a green fluorescent stage prior to becoming fully folded into their mature red fluorescent state. In fact, some proteins can be photoswitched in and/or out of their mature red state, e.g., Dendra2, EosFP, and Kaede.

Given this protein engineering know-how, perhaps it was just a matter of time before someone made a photoswitchable genetically encoded calcium indicator (GECI). The excellent OpenOptogenetics blog has a post up on the recent report from Robert Campbell and Takeharu Nagai labs (two GECI heavyweights). (link to article)

PubPeer, a site for anonymous (or non-anonymous), post-publication peer review is taking off nicely. Traffic is increasing to the site and there are a lot of interesting comments, including both detailed commentary and brief observations. Some discussions are getting quite involved (over 15 comments).

Since the last time Labrigger mentioned PubPeer, they’ve added some nice features.
1: Recent comments. (pictured above) shows the most recent activity on the site.
2: Alerts. Users can choose to receive email alerts whenever someone comments on their favorite
papers.
3: Simplified author signup. Get to commenting easier.

There will probably always be a need for metrics like impact factor so that non-experts can estimate the significance of a scientist’s publications. These metrics are problematic, as we all know.

Interestingly, the relationship between an article’s citation rate and its journal’s impact factor is weakening. The saturation of the market by many specialty journals, along with their widespread online accessibility, has resulted in a lot of top papers going to smaller, low impact factor journals. This preprint has the details:

The weakening relationship between the Impact Factor and papers’ citations in the digital age
George A. Lozano, Vincent Lariviere, Yves Gingras

Will this trend continue?
(source, arXiv)