Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Tutorial: guidance for quantitative confocal microscopy

Abstract

When used appropriately, a confocal fluorescence microscope is an excellent tool for making quantitative measurements in cells and tissues. The confocal microscope’s ability to block out-of-focus light and thereby perform optical sectioning through a specimen allows the researcher to quantify fluorescence with very high spatial precision. However, generating meaningful data using confocal microscopy requires careful planning and a thorough understanding of the technique. In this tutorial, the researcher is guided through all aspects of acquiring quantitative confocal microscopy images, including optimizing sample preparation for fixed and live cells, choosing the most suitable microscope for a given application and configuring the microscope parameters. Suggestions are offered for planning unbiased and rigorous confocal microscope experiments. Common pitfalls such as photobleaching and cross-talk are addressed, as well as several troubling instrumentation problems that may prevent the acquisition of quantitative data. Finally, guidelines for analyzing and presenting confocal images in a way that maintains the quantitative nature of the data are presented, and statistical analysis is discussed. A visual summary of this tutorial is available as a poster (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0307-7).

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Quantitative confocal microscopy example.
Fig. 2: Principles of confocal microscopy.
Fig. 3: Effect of wavelength on resolution.
Fig. 4: Effect of mounting medium on confocal images of fixed cells.
Fig. 5: Comparing inter-related key instrument performance parameters of different microscopy techniques and configurations.
Fig. 6: Objective lens comparisons.
Fig. 7: The effects of photobleaching during widefield observation.
Fig. 8: Configuring confocal detection channels.
Fig. 9: Unexpected instrumentation issues cause uncertainty in intensity measurements.
Fig. 10: Sampling and statistics.

References

  1. 1.

    Pawley, J. The 39 steps: a cautionary tale of quantitative 3-D fluorescence microscopy. Biotechniques 28, 884–886 (2000). 888.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    North, A. J. Seeing is believing? A beginners’ guide to practical pitfalls in image acquisition. J. Cell Biol. 172, 9–18 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hell, S., Reiner, G., Cremer, C. & Stelzer, E. H. K. Aberrations in confocal fluorescence microscopy induced by mismatches in refractive index. J. Microsc. 169, 391–405 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Richardson, D. S. & Lichtman, J. W. Clarifying tissue clearing. Cell 162, 246–257 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Allan, V. J. Basic immunofluorescence. in Protein Localization by Fluorescence Microscopy: A Practical Approach (ed. Allan, V. J.) 1–26 (Oxford University Press, 1999).

  6. 6.

    McDonald, K. L., Morphew, M., Verkade, P. & Muller-Reichert, T. Recent advances in high-pressure freezing: equipment- and specimen-loading methods. Methods Mol. Biol. 369, 143–173 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    North, A. J., Chidgey, M. A., Clarke, J. P., Bardsley, W. G. & Garrod, D. R. Distinct desmocollin isoforms occur in the same desmosomes and show reciprocally graded distributions in bovine nasal epidermis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 7701–7705 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Burry, R. W. Immunocytochemistry: A Practical Guide for Biomedical Research (Springer, 2010).

  9. 9.

    Park, Y. G. et al. Protection of tissue physicochemical properties using polyfunctional crosslinkers. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 73–83 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Richter, K. N. et al. Glyoxal as an alternative fixative to formaldehyde in immunostaining and super-resolution microscopy. EMBO J. 37, 139–159 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Melan, M. A. & Sluder, G. Redistribution and differential extraction of soluble proteins in permeabilized cultured cells. Implications for immunofluorescence microscopy. J. Cell Sci. 101(Pt 4), 731–743 (1992).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Jamur, M. C. & Oliver, C. Permeabilization of cell membranes. Methods Mol. Biol. 588, 63–66 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Yan, Q. & Bruchez, M. P. Advances in chemical labeling of proteins in living cells. Cell Tissue Res. 360, 179–194 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ries, J., Kaplan, C., Platonova, E., Eghlidi, H. & Ewers, H. A simple, versatile method for GFP-based super-resolution microscopy via nanobodies. Nat. Methods 9, 582–584 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dolman, N. J., Kilgore, J. A. & Davidson, M. W. A review of reagents for fluorescence microscopy of cellular compartments and structures, part I: BacMam labeling and reagents for vesicular structures. Curr. Protoc. Cytom. 65, 12.30.1–12.30.27 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kilgore, J. A., Dolman, N. J. & Davidson, M. W. A review of reagents for fluorescence microscopy of cellular compartments and structures, Part II: reagents for non-vesicular organelles. Curr. Protoc. Cytom. 66, 12.31.1–12.31.24 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Bordeaux, J. et al. Antibody validation. Biotechniques 48, 197–209 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Pauly, D. & Hanack, K. How to avoid pitfalls in antibody use. F1000Res 4, 691 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Stadler, C. et al. Systematic validation of antibody binding and protein subcellular localization using siRNA and confocal microscopy. J. Proteomics 75, 2236–2251 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Stack, R. F. et al. Quality assurance testing for modern optical imaging systems. Microsc. Microanal. 17, 598–606 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Cordes, T., Maiser, A., Steinhauer, C., Schermelleh, L. & Tinnefeld, P. Mechanisms and advancement of antifading agents for fluorescence microscopy and single-molecule spectroscopy. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 6699–6709 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Piterburg, M., Panet, H. & Weiss, A. Photoconversion of DAPI following UV or violet excitation can cause DAPI to fluoresce with blue or cyan excitation. J. Microsc. 246, 89–95 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Frigault, M. M., Lacoste, J., Swift, J. L. & Brown, C. M. Live-cell microscopy—tips and tools. J. Cell Sci. 122, 753–767 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ettinger, A. & Wittmann, T. Fluorescence live cell imaging. Methods Cell Biol. 123, 77–94 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Lambert, T. J. FPbase: a community-editable fluorescent protein database. Nat. Methods 16, 277–278 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ai, H. W., Baird, M. A., Shen, Y., Davidson, M. W. & Campbell, R. E. Engineering and characterizing monomeric fluorescent proteins for live-cell imaging applications. Nat. Protoc. 9, 910–928 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Rodriguez, E. A. et al. The growing and glowing toolbox of fluorescent and photoactive proteins. Trends Biochem. Sci. 42, 111–129 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Cranfill, P. J. et al. Quantitative assessment of fluorescent proteins. Nat. Methods 13, 557–562 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bottanelli, F. et al. Two-colour live-cell nanoscale imaging of intracellular targets. Nat. Commun. 7, 10778 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Erdmann, R. S. et al. Labeling strategies matter for super-resolution microscopy: a comparison between HaloTags and SNAP-tags. Cell Chem. Biol. 26, 584–592.e6 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Wang, L. et al. A general strategy to develop cell permeable and fluorogenic probes for multicolour nanoscopy. Nat. Chem. 12, 165–172 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Grimm, J. B., Brown, T. A., English, B. P., Lionnet, T. & Lavis, L. D. Synthesis of Janelia Fluor HaloTag and SNAP-Tag ligands and their use in cellular imaging experiments. Methods Mol. Biol. 1663, 179–188 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Ferrando-May, E. et al. Advanced light microscopy core facilities: balancing service, science and career. Microsc. Res. Tech. 79, 463–479 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Kiepas, A., Voorand, E., Mubaid, F., Siegel, P. M. & Brown, C. M. Optimizing live-cell fluorescence imaging conditions to minimize phototoxicity. J. Cell Sci. 133, jcs242834 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Laissue, P. P., Alghamdi, R. A., Tomancak, P., Reynaud, E. G. & Shroff, H. Assessing phototoxicity in live fluorescence imaging. Nat. Methods 14, 657 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Jonkman, J. E., Swoger, J., Kress, H., Rohrbach, A. & Stelzer, E. H. Resolution in optical microscopy. Methods Enzymol. 360, 416–446 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Jacques, S. L. Optical properties of biological tissues: a review. Phys. Med. Biol. 58, R37–R61 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bolte, S. & Cordelieres, F. P. A guided tour into subcellular colocalization analysis in light microscopy. J. Microsc. 224, 213–232 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Dunn, K. W., Kamocka, M. M. & McDonald, J. H. A practical guide to evaluating colocalization in biological microscopy. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 300, C723–C742 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Wallace, W., Schaefer, L. H. & Swedlow, J. R. A workingperson’s guide to deconvolution in light microscopy. Biotechniques 31, 1076–1078 (2001). 1080, 1082 passim.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Jonkman, J. & Brown, C. M. Any way you slice it—a comparison of confocal microscopy techniques. J. Biomol. Tech. 26, 54–65 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Korobchevskaya, K., Lagerholm, B. C., Colin-York, H. & Fritzsche, M. Exploring the potential of Airyscan microscopy for live cell imaging. Photonics 4, 41 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Zipfel, W. R., Williams, R. M. & Webb, W. W. Nonlinear magic: multiphoton microscopy in the biosciences. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 1369–1377 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Axelrod, D. Total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy in cell biology. Traffic 2, 764–774 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Power, R. M. & Huisken, J. A guide to light-sheet fluorescence microscopy for multiscale imaging. Nat. Methods 14, 360–373 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Strobl, F., Schmitz, A. & Stelzer, E. H. K. Improving your four-dimensional image: traveling through a decade of light-sheet-based fluorescence microscopy research. Nat. Protoc. 12, 1103–1109 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Sigal, Y. M., Zhou, R. & Zhuang, X. Visualizing and discovering cellular structures with super-resolution microscopy. Science 361, 880–887 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Wu, Y. & Shroff, H. Faster, sharper, and deeper: structured illumination microscopy for biological imaging. Nat. Methods 15, 1011–1019 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Ishikawa-Ankerhold, H. C., Ankerhold, R. & Drummen, G. P. Advanced fluorescence microscopy techniques—FRAP, FLIP, FLAP, FRET and FLIM. Molecules 17, 4047–4132 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Lippincott-Schwartz, J. & Patterson, G. H. Development and use of fluorescent protein markers in living cells. Science 300, 87–91 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Lippincott-Schwartz, J., Altan-Bonnet, N. & Patterson, G. H. Photobleaching and photoactivation: following protein dynamics in living cells. Nat. Cell Biol. Suppl, S7–S14 (2003).

  52. 52.

    Elson, E. L. Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy: past, present, future. Biophys. J. 101, 2855–2870 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Kim, S. A., Heinze, K. G. & Schwille, P. Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy in living cells. Nat. Methods 4, 963–973 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Brown, C. M. et al. Raster image correlation spectroscopy (RICS) for measuring fast protein dynamics and concentrations with a commercial laser scanning confocal microscope. J. Microsc. 229, 78–91 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Sprague, B. L. & McNally, J. G. FRAP analysis of binding: proper and fitting. Trends Cell Biol. 15, 84–91 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Padilla-Parra, S. & Tramier, M. FRET microscopy in the living cell: different approaches, strengths and weaknesses. Bioessays 34, 369–376 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Broussard, J. A., Rappaz, B., Webb, D. J. & Brown, C. M. Fluorescence resonance energy transfer microscopy as demonstrated by measuring the activation of the serine/threonine kinase Akt. Nat. Protoc. 8, 265–281 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Bacia, K. & Schwille, P. Practical guidelines for dual-color fluorescence cross-correlation spectroscopy. Nat. Protoc. 2, 2842–2856 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Krieger, J. W. et al. Imaging fluorescence (cross-) correlation spectroscopy in live cells and organisms. Nat. Protoc. 10, 1948–1974 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Soderberg, O. et al. Direct observation of individual endogenous protein complexes in situ by proximity ligation. Nat. Methods 3, 995–1000 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Holman, L., Head, M. L., Lanfear, R. & Jennions, M. D. Evidence of experimental bias in the life sciences: why we need blind data recording. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002190 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Kaptchuk, T. J. The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial: gold standard or golden calf? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 54, 541–549 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Bankhead, P. et al. QuPath: open source software for digital pathology image analysis. Sci. Rep. 7, 16878 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Komura, D. & Ishikawa, S. Machine learning methods for histopathological image analysis. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 16, 34–42 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Robertson, S., Azizpour, H., Smith, K. & Hartman, J. Digital image analysis in breast pathology—from image processing techniques to artificial intelligence. Transl. Res. 194, 19–35 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Howard, V. & Reed, M. G. Unbiased Stereology: Three-Dimensional Measurement in Microscopy (Springer, 1998).

  67. 67.

    Kipanyula, M. J. & Sife, A. S. Global trends in application of stereology as a quantitative tool in biomedical research. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 1825697 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Jonkman, J. E. et al. An introduction to the wound healing assay using live-cell microscopy. Cell Adh. Migr. 8, 440–451 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Zimmermann, T., Marrison, J., Hogg, K. & O’Toole, P. Clearing up the signal: spectral imaging and linear unmixing in fluorescence microscopy. Methods Mol. Biol. 1075, 129–148 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Jonkman, J., Brown, C. M. & Cole, R. W. Quantitative confocal microscopy: beyond a pretty picture. Methods Cell Biol. 123, 113–134 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Oreopoulos, J., Berman, R. & Browne, M. Chapter 9—Spinning-disk confocal microscopy: present technology and future trends. in Methods in Cell Biology: Quantitative Imaging in Cell Biology Vol. 123 (eds Waters, J. C. & Wittman, T.) 153–175 (Academic Press, 2014).

  72. 72.

    Model, M. A. & Blank, J. L. Concentrated dyes as a source of two-dimensional fluorescent field for characterization of a confocal microscope. J. Microsc. 229, 12–16 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    International Organization for Standardization. Microscopes—Confocal microscopes—Optical data of fluorescence confocal microscopes for biological imaging. ISO Standard No. 21073:2019 (2019).

  74. 74.

    Schindelin, J. et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 676–682 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Arena, E. T. et al. Quantitating the cell: turning images into numbers with ImageJ. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Dev. Biol. 6, e260 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Linkert, M. et al. Metadata matters: access to image data in the real world. J. Cell Biol. 189, 777–782 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Arganda-Carreras, I. et al. Trainable Weka Segmentation: a machine learning tool for microscopy pixel classification. Bioinformatics 33, 2424–2426 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Tinevez, J. Y. et al. TrackMate: an open and extensible platform for single-particle tracking. Methods 115, 80–90 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    McQuin, C. et al. CellProfiler 3.0: next-generation image processing for biology. PLoS Biol. 16, e2005970 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Bray, M. A. et al. Cell Painting, a high-content image-based assay for morphological profiling using multiplexed fluorescent dyes. Nat. Protoc. 11, 1757–1774 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Weigert, M. et al. Content-aware image restoration: pushing the limits of fluorescence microscopy. Nat. Methods 15, 1090–1097 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Belthangady, C. & Royer, L. A. Applications, promises, and pitfalls of deep learning for fluorescence image reconstruction. Nat. Methods 16, 1215–1225 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Royer, L. A. et al. ClearVolume: open-source live 3D visualization for light-sheet microscopy. Nat. Methods 12, 480–481 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Cromey, D. W. Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images. Sci. Eng. Ethics 16, 639–667 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Cromey, D. W. Digital images are data: and should be treated as such. Methods Mol. Biol. 931, 1–27 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Goodwin, P. C. Quantitative deconvolution microscopy. Methods Cell Biol. 123, 177–192 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Allan, C. et al. OMERO: flexible, model-driven data management for experimental biology. Nat. Methods 9, 245–253 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Ellenberg, J. et al. A call for public archives for biological image data. Nat. Methods 15, 849–854 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Fay, D. S. & Gerow, K. A biologist’s guide to statistical thinking and analysis. WormBook Jul 9, 1–54 (2013).

  90. 90.

    Vaux, D. L. Basic statistics in cell biology. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 30, 23–37 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Lacoste, J., Young, K. & Brown, C. M. Live-cell migration and adhesion turnover assays. Methods Mol. Biol. 931, 61–84 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. Visualizing samples with box plots. Nat. Methods 11, 119–120 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. Significance, P values and t-tests. Nat. Methods 10, 1041–1042 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L. & Lazar, N. A. Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”. Am. Stat. 73, 1–19 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Hibbs, A. R., MacDonald, G. & Garsha, K. Chapter 36: Practical confocal microscopy. in Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy 3rd edn (ed. Pawley, J. B.) (Springer, 2006).

  96. 96.

    Wang, H., Lacoche, S., Huang, L., Xue, B. & Muthuswamy, S. K. Rotational motion during three-dimensional morphogenesis of mammary epithelial acini relates to laminin matrix assembly. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 163–168 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Cole, R. W., Jinadasa, T. & Brown, C. M. Measuring and interpreting point spread functions to determine confocal microscope resolution and ensure quality control. Nat. Protoc. 6, 1929–1941 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

J.J. thanks the AOMF staff for helpful discussions, Courtney McIntosh for the images in Supplementary Fig. 1, and the Princess Margaret Foundation for ongoing financial support of the AOMF. G.D.W. thanks A*STAR and the National Research Foundation’s Shared Infrastructure Support Grant for continued support of the A*STAR Microscopy Platform and John Common for samples (Box 2). C.M.B. acknowledges Alex Kiepas (McGill University), who collected the adhesion dynamics data for the statistics section of the paper including Fig. 10, and the ABIF for general support and access to the Diskovery spinning disk TIRF microscope for collecting the adhesion dynamics data. K.I.A. thanks the Francis Crick Institute for their CALM support, and facility colleagues for helpful discussion. A.J.N. thanks the Rockefeller University for its continued support of the Frits and Rita Markus Bio-Imaging Resource Center (BIRC), the Sohn Conference Foundation for funding the Leica SP8 confocal microscope used to generate Figs. 3 and 4 and the facility staff and users for stimulating discussions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

No section of this manuscript was untouched by all five authors. J.J. drafted the outline, assembled the team and wrote the Introduction, ‘Removing bias’, ‘Troubleshooting instrumentation issues’ and ‘Analyzing and presenting quantitative images’. He also generated Figs. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9; Table 1; Box 3; and Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 and contributed to general editing. C.M.B. analyzed adhesion dynamics data, generated the statistics figure (Fig. 10), wrote the Statistics section of the manuscript and contributed to ‘General considerations for preparing samples for quantitative fluorescence microscopy’, ‘Preparing fixed cells and tissues’ and ‘Preparing live cells’ and significantly to general editing of the manuscript. G.D.W. worked on ‘Choosing the right microscope’ and ‘Setting up the microscope’, performed general editing of the manuscript and generated Fig. 5, the images for Box 2 and Supplementary Video 1. K.I.A. worked on ‘Choosing the right microscope’ and ‘Planning your experiment’ and performed general editing of the manuscript. A.J.N. worked on ‘General considerations for preparing samples for quantitative fluorescence microscopy’ and ‘Setting up the microscope’, contributed extensively to general editing and generated Figs. 3 and 4 and Boxes 1 and 2.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Jonkman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Protocols thanks Gary Laevsky, Timo Zimmermann and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

Guidance for Quantitative Confocal Microscopy (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0307-7): This poster is a visual summary of this paper.

Molecular Expressions Optical Microscopy Primer (https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/): Developed by Michael W. Davidson and his team at The Florida State University, this website hosts a vast amount of knowledge on all aspects of optical microscopy from the physics of light and color and the anatomy of a basic transmitted-light microscope to advanced techniques such as FRET and TIRF.

iBiology Microscopy Series (https://www.ibiology.org/online-biology-courses/microscopy-series/): Directed by Ron Vale, Nico Stuurman and Kurt Thorn, this 72-video series (and growing!) starts with the basics of optical microscopy and concludes with some of the latest techniques, such as super-resolution microscopy. Their Short Microscopy series of just 14 videos may be more manageable for some.

iBiology BioImage Analysis Course (https://www.ibiology.org/online-biology-courses/bioimage-analysis-course/): Created by Anne Carpenter (CellProfiler project lead) and Kevin Eliceiri (ImageJ project lead), this series focuses on general steps of image processing as well as introductions to CellProfiler and ImageJ specifically.

Microscope Vendor websites: Many microscope vendors have educational material on their websites. Some of them license sections from Molecular Expressions, but supplemented with their own microscopes’ unique attributes. Others have written their own material from scratch.

The Confocal Microscopy Listserv (https://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy): With an active subscriber base of nearly 4,000 participants and an archive that goes back to 1991, the Confocal Listserv is a valuable resource for confocal and related questions. Registration (free) is required.

Microforum (https://forum.microlist.org/): This new web forum led by Jennifer Waters and Tally Lambert was established in 2019. Its focus is on hardware, acquisition and specimen-related aspects of scientific imaging, particularly (but not limited to) the theory and practical use of optical microscopes and detectors, fluorescent proteins and probes and specimen preparation.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Fig. 1 How objective magnification affects the brightness of a CLSM image.

a, Schematic showing illumination and light collection for 40×/1.4 NA and 63×/1.4 NA objective lenses. The same objective is used for both illumination and collection in an epifluorescence geometry, but for clarity, the beampath has been unfolded. The incoming laser beam is focused to a small point in the specimen plane: the PSF. The shape of the PSF is determined by the NA of the objective. The intensity of the PSF depends on the size of the back aperture of the objective, which changes with the magnification of the lens. The incoming laser beam overfills the back aperture of the objective, with the result that the back aperture crops the outer rays of the laser beam, reducing the intensity of the incoming laser beam accordingly. For example, when switching from a 40×/1.4 NA objective to a 63×/1.4 NA objective, the aperture area is reduced by a factor of 402/632 = 0.40. Hence, we would expect a CLSM image through the 63× objective to be ~40% of the intensity compared to using the 40× objective, if the NA and quality of the lenses are identical. Does this mean that a 40×/1.4 NA objective is more sensitive than a 63×/1.4 NA objective because of the increased brightness through the 40× lens? No. The increased brightness for the 40× lens stems from the fact that more of the laser beam passes through the aperture and hits the sample: this change in intensity by means of a physical aperture is no more helpful than changing the laser power in the software. On the other hand, a higher NA is always helpful for confocal microscopy since the collection efficiency of the objective increases with the NA2 independent of magnification. b, CLSM image of a mouse kidney slide labeled with Alexa Fluor 488-WGA (Molecular Probes Prepared Slide #3) taken with a 40×/1.4 NA objective. c, CLSM image of the same field of view as b, taken with a 63×/1.4 NA objective using the same imaging parameters as b. The mean intensity of the image is reduced by ~36% in the 63× lens compared to the 40× lens. However, the power of the laser beam, which was measured using an oil immersion–compatible power meter (Thorlabs PM400 console with S170C sensor), was also reduced by 34%. This demonstrates that the dominant effect of changing magnification is to crop out a portion of the laser beam, for which one could easily compensate by increasing the laser power accordingly. The scale bar is 10 μm.

Supplementary Fig. 2 Focus drift.

Focus drift affects most microscope stands for 2–3 h after turning the microscope on, even when no incubators are used. A thin, fixed fluorescently labeled slide (Fluocells Prepared Slide #1, Molecular Probes) was placed on the stage of several confocal microscopes that had been turned off overnight (≥12 h). An optimized image was captured, and the focus position was recorded 10 min after turning power on to the instrument. For subsequent time points, the focus was adjusted manually so that the new image exactly matched the first image of the time series (the saturation LUT was helpful for evaluating when the images matched). There were no microscope incubators installed on these microscopes. a, Focus drift measured three times on the same Leica SP8 equipped with STED superresolution and a Super Galvo Z-stage demonstrates that the stand should be turned on 2–3 h before beginning confocal acquisition (particularly if STED is employed, as the acquisition times tend to be longer than regular confocal imaging). The Leica DMi8 microscope stand’s closed-loop focus feedback was enabled. b, Focus drift on a similar Leica SP8, both with and without the Super Galvo Z-stage, and both with and without the DMi8 closed-loop focus enabled. c, Focus drift on four other microscopes, demonstrating that the problem is not limited to any particular brand but is widespread.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Video 1

DIC complements fluorescence for live-cell confocal microscopy. Live-cell confocal fluorescence (left) and DIC (right) timelapse imaging of keratinocytes expressing Keratin5-GFP. DIC can produce sharp images of cell and organelle boundaries without the need for labeling with additional fluorophores.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jonkman, J., Brown, C.M., Wright, G.D. et al. Tutorial: guidance for quantitative confocal microscopy. Nat Protoc 15, 1585–1611 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0313-9

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing