Tutorial: avoiding and correcting sample-induced spherical aberration artifacts in 3D fluorescence microscopy

Abstract

Spherical aberration (SA) occurs when light rays entering at different points of a spherical lens are not focused to the same point of the optical axis. SA that occurs inside the lens elements of a fluorescence microscope is well understood and corrected for. However, SA is also induced when light passes through an interface of refractive index (RI)-mismatched substances (i.e., a discrepancy between the RI of the immersion medium and the RI of the sample). SA due to RI mismatches has many deleterious effects on imaging. Perhaps most important for 3D imaging is that the distance the image plane moves in a sample is not equivalent to the distance traveled by an objective (or stage) during z-stack acquisition. This non-uniform translation along the z axis gives rise to artifactually elongated images (if the objective is immersed in a medium with a higher RI than that of the sample) or compressed images (if the objective is immersed in a medium with a lower RI than that of the sample) and alters the optimal axial sampling rate. In this tutorial, we describe why this distortion occurs, how it impacts quantitative measurements and axial resolution, and what can be done to avoid SA and thereby prevent distorted images. In addition, this tutorial aims to better inform researchers of how to correct RI mismatch–induced axial distortions and provides a practical ImageJ/Fiji-based tool to reduce the prevalence of volumetric measurement errors and lost axial resolution.

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: Refractive index mismatches induce spherical aberration and axial distortion.
Fig. 2: Comparison of methods for determining refractive index–mismatch correction factors (high to low refractive index).
Fig. 3: Comparison of methods for determining refractive index mismatch correction factors (low to high refractive index).
Fig. 4: Refractive index mismatches induce a focal shift.
Fig. 5: Refractive index mismatches induce spherical aberration and axial distortion.
Fig. 6: Correcting axial sampling improves segmentation.

Data availability

All original (raw) data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Code availability

All necessary code and instructions for running the axial correction macro are provided in the Supplementary Software and Box 1.

References

  1. 1.

    Gibson, S. F. & Lanni, F. Experimental test of an analytical model of aberration in an oil-immersion objective lens used in three-dimensional light microscopy. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 9, 154–166 (1992).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Zhang, Q. et al. Quantitative refractive index distribution of single cell by combining phase-shifting interferometry and AFM imaging. Sci. Rep. 7, 2532 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Keller, H. E. Objectives for confocal microscopy. in Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy (ed Pawley, J. B.) (Springer, 1995).

  4. 4.

    Jonkman, J., Brown, C. M., Wright, G. D., Anderson, K. I. & North, A. J. Tutorial: guidance for quantitative confocal microscopy. Nat. Protoc. 15, 1585–1611 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Heine, J. et al. Three dimensional live-cell STED microscopy at increased depth using a water immersion objective. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 89, 053701 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Schmidt, N. C., Kahms, M., Huve, J. & Klingauf, J. Intrinsic refractive index matched 3D dSTORM with two objectives: comparison of detection techniques. Sci. Rep. 8, 13343 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dodt, H. U. et al. Ultramicroscopy: development and outlook. Neurophotonics 2, 041407 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Engelbrecht, C. J. & Stelzer, E. H. Resolution enhancement in a light-sheet-based microscope (SPIM). Opt. Lett. 31, 1477–1479 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ji, N. Adaptive optical fluorescence microscopy. Nat. Methods 14, 374–380 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Patwary, N., King, S. V., Saavedra, G. & Preza, C. Reducing effects of aberration in 3D fluorescence imaging using wavefront coding with a radially symmetric phase mask. Opt. Express 24, 12905–12921 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Chung, K. et al. Structural and molecular interrogation of intact biological systems. Nature 497, 332–337 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Renier, N. et al. iDISCO: a simple, rapid method to immunolabel large tissue samples for volume imaging. Cell 159, 896–910 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Carlsson, K. The influence of specimen refractive-index, detector signal integration, and nonuniform scan speed on the imaging properties in confocal microscopy. J Microsc.-Oxford 163, 167–178 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Visser, T. D., Oud, J. L. & Brakenhoff, G. J. Refractive-index and axial distance measurements in 3-D microscopy. Optik 90, 17–19 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sheppard, C. J., Gu, M., Brain, K. & Zhou, H. Influence of spherical aberration on axial imaging of confocal reflection microscopy. Appl. Opt. 33, 616–624 (1994).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S. & Eliceiri, K. W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 671–675 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ghosh, S. & Preza, C. Fluorescence microscopy point spread function model accounting for aberrations due to refractive index variability within a specimen. J. Biomed. Opt. 20, 75003 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Model, M. A., Fang, J., Yuvaraj, P., Chen, Y. & Zhang Newby, B. M. 3D deconvolution of spherically aberrated images using commercial software. J. Microsc. 241, 94–100 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kim, B. & Naemura, T. Blind depth-variant deconvolution of 3D data in wide-field fluorescence microscopy. Sci. Rep. 5, 9894 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Preza, C. & Conchello, J. A. Depth-variant maximum-likelihood restoration for three-dimensional fluorescence microscopy. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 21, 1593–1601 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ghosh, S. & Preza, C. Three-dimensional block-based restoration integrated with wide-field fluorescence microscopy for the investigation of thick specimens with spatially variant refractive index. J. Biomed. Opt. 21, 46010 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Piccinotti and L. Rubin for providing organoid samples. We thank the Harvard Center for Biological Imaging for infrastructure and support. J.W.L. was supported by the following funding sources: National Institutes of Health grants P50 MH094271, U24 NS109102, and U19 NS104653 and Department of Defense MURI award GG008784.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The idea for calculating axial distortion correction factors as described in this tutorial was conceived by D.S.R. and J.W.L. E.E.D. and D.S.R. carried out experiments and analyzed data. D.S.R., J.W.L. and E.E.D. wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to editing the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas S. Richardson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Protocols thanks Chrysanthe Preza 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

References that contributed to the development of this protocol

Visser, T. D. et al. Optik 90, 17–19 (1992): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285251956_Refractive_index_and_axial_distance_measurements_in_3-D_microscopy

Hell, S., Reiner, G., Cremer, C. & Stelzer, E. H. K. J. Microsc. 169, 391–405, (1993): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2818.1993.tb03315.x

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Notes 1 and 2.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Software

Supplementary Software

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Diel, E.E., Lichtman, J.W. & Richardson, D.S. Tutorial: avoiding and correcting sample-induced spherical aberration artifacts in 3D fluorescence microscopy. Nat Protoc (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0360-2

Download citation

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.