Recent Nobel Prize Winner Revolutionizes Microscopy Again 34
An anonymous reader writes: Eric Betzig recently shared in the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his work on high-resolution microscopy. Just yesterday, Betzig and a team of researchers published a new microscopy technique (abstract) that "allows them to observe living cellular processes at groundbreaking resolution and speed." According to the article, "Until now, the best microscope for viewing living systems as they moved were confocal microscopes. They beam light down onto a sample of cells. The light penetrates the whole sample and bounces back. ... The light is toxic, and degrades the living system over time. Betzig's new microscope solves this by generating a sheet of light that comes in from the side of the sample, made up of a series of beams that harm the sample less than one solid cone of light. Scientists can now snap a high-res image of the entire section they're illuminating, without exposing the rest of the sample to any light at all."
We demand more Bennett! (Score:5, Funny)
This is boring and their work sounds useless to the world-at-large. We need more world-changing articles by Bennett Hasselton coming up with better algorithms to solve the queueing issues for the ice lines at Burning Man.
Re: (Score:2)
This is boring and their work sounds useless to the world-at-large. We need more world-changing articles by Bennett Hasselton coming up with better algorithms to solve the queueing issues for the ice lines at Burning Man.
Ok, I'll bite. Why are we trolling Bennett Haselton?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He trolled us first with his endlessly long drivel pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
which post was the last one, the straw that broke the camel's back
Re: (Score:2)
Right, that's my question. I hate his 14 chapter monologs as much as the next guy. But why were people finally fed up today?
Re: (Score:2)
I never even noticed it. Well.. after hearing so much about it I went back and looked and kind of see what people are talking about. Before I had it so toned out that I never noticed. There are always articles that don' t interest me. They might be drivel or they might just not be one of my topics. Either way.. you don' t have to click every headline!
Re: (Score:1)
He's an annoying douchenozzle and we're fed up with his posts.
Re: (Score:1)
Dice posts his drivel up like it's an almighty opinion and the majority of those commenting disagree or bring up really good points or blatantly show how he doesn't know what he's talking about. He never says a fucking word here in the comments - this is what gets me. The exchange is unbalanced.
So it's like Dice shoving his opinion in readers face, Haselton too spineless to come here and back himself up in anyway. It's been a repeating loop with every "contribution". Atleast jon katz had an account that I k
Re: (Score:2)
If Bennnet does actually post ever, I stand corrected.
I've seen him respond to comments on one of his submissions. I stopped reading his spew some time ago, but I will occasionally read the comments because invariably somebody in the community will post a better, more insightful, more correct discussion of the topic.
But...
But still no one simply fucking cares what he has to say.
Yup.
Re: (Score:2)
At least his shtick is on a different topic each time.
Bennett Haselton on the implications (Score:2, Funny)
Seems pretty exciting and I'm never against easing the suffering of humanity. But really I want to know how this will effect us? What are the implications? How will this effect distributed social networks, will we still need them? What if I'm stuck in the dessert and I need ice. I'd like to hear his thoughts before I draw my conclusions. He's a frequent contributor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
With Bennet Haselton???
I hope not.
Re:Bennett Haselton on the implications (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a friend who works for a laser microscopy manufacturer. They use this technology (or systems very similar to it) to be able to record, in real time, cellular activity, INSIDE the cell, without killing the cell.
You know how it's 2014 and we still don't understand how memories are formed, or what the exact interactions between cancers and health cells are, or how we're always looking for new ways to deliver targeted medication/toxins on a cellular level?
Yeah, all of that ties back to this. Want to know what exactly is going on as the ebola virus invades a cell? This will let you see it, in real time.
This is the stuff that is the bedrock that leaps in scientific knowledge is based on. We are staring at the shoulders of a giant.
-Rick
Re: (Score:1)
What if I'm stuck in the dessert and I need ice.
I'm sure there'd be plenty of people happy to help you eat your way out... depending on the dessert of course. Maybe Bennett could help with THAT?
*sigh* (Score:3)
*sigh* And some of us have yet to get bored with "pull my finger".
Re: (Score:1)
Was the previous version called FACE?
Toxic light (Score:1)
Toxic light is a new one.
Having no substance, light can't carry any toxins.
The light might fry the specimen. But no rational definition of toxic applies here.
Re: (Score:1)
I dunno, the baseline definition from Wikipedia seems to support this definition without any stretching:
"Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism. Toxicity can refer to the effect on a whole organism, such as an animal, bacterium, or plant, as well as the effect on a substructure of the organism, such as a cell (cytotoxicity) or an organ such as the liver (hepatotoxicity)."
The substance (light) damages the whole organism, or essential structures of it.
Light is a thing. Just because
Re: (Score:2)
toxic
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, affected with, or caused by a toxin or poison:
a toxic condition.
2.
acting as or having the effect of a poison; poisonous:
a toxic drug.
poison
noun
1.
a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.
Re:Toxic light (Score:4, Informative)
The toxicity is actually an indirect effect. The fluorescent dyes can in their excited states react with molecular oxygen to produce reactive oxygen species that damage tissues. By reducing the time and energy of excitation of the fluorophores (by only exciting those actually about to be scanned by the microscope), this technique reduces the amount of toxic byproducts.
Re: (Score:2)
As best I can tell, even reading all the other replays, THIS reply is the only one that makes any sense at all.
Re:Toxic light (Score:3)
I love how slashdotters with absoloutely know knowledge of a field dismiss a widely established claim using nothing but the burning power of blind ignorance.
Toxic light is a new one. Having no substance, light can't carry any toxins. The light might fry the specimen.
But no rational definition of toxic applies here.
Light, it turns out does cause toxic effects:
http://www.microscopyu.com/ref... [microscopyu.com]
It's a well known effect called "phototoxiciy". And it's a huge problem in live cells, especially when they express s
Re: (Score:2)
I like how smartass respondents like to gloss over confirmations in their own reference as if they didn't exist, and wouldn't be caught.
Phototoxicity often occurs upon repeated exposure of fluorescently labeled cells to illumination from lasers and high-intensity arc-discharge lamps. In their excited state, fluorescent molecules tend to react with molecular oxygen to produce free radicals that can damage subcellular components and compromise the entire cell. In addition, several reports have suggested that particular constituents of standard culture media, including the vitamin riboflavin and the amino acid tryptophan, may also contribute to adverse light-induced effects on cultured cells. Fluorescent proteins, due to the fact that their fluorophores are buried deep within a protective polypeptide envelope, are generally not phototoxic to cells. However, many of the synthetic fluorophores, such as the MitoTracker and nuclear stains (Hoechst, SYTO cyanine dyes, and DRAQ5), can be highly toxic to cells when illuminated for even relatively short periods of time. In designing experiments, fluorophores that exhibit the longest excitation wavelengths possible should be chosen in order to minimize damage to cells by short wavelength
It wasn't the light that was toxic you idiot.
It was the fluorescent molecules added to the specimen, and
constituents of standard culture media,
nuclear stains, dyes, etc.
Light itself is not toxic. Read reverseengineer's response http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
OK, so don't let the fact that I've worked in fluorescence microscopy hold you up. You clearly fervently believe that you are correct even though your entire exposure to the area is one article on slashdot.
It wasn't the light that was toxic you idiot.
It was the fluorescent molecules added to the specimen, and constituents of standard culture media, nuclear stains, dyes, etc.
Then how come the cells lasted that long with fluorescent proteins transfected in then? The reason is the toxicity only occurs on expos