Advertisement

Quantitative Interference Microscopy

  • Graham A. Dunn
Chapter
Part of the Topics in Molecular and Structural Biology book series (TMSB)

Abstract

In any microscope, the formation of an image depends on the interference of light: according to Abbe’s theory, the image results from the interference of direct and diffracted light in the image plane. Most modern microscopes used in cell biology incorporate devices that exploit interference in the image plane for revealing phase differences introduced by transparent specimens in order to improve image contrast. Thus, it is difficult to define exactly what constitutes an interference microscope. This need not concern us here, however, because the term ‘quantitative interference microscopy’, more concisely known as ‘interferometric microscopy’, applies only to those instruments that are capable of measuring the phase difference introduced by the specimen. For example, the currently popular differential interference contrast (DIC) microscope developed by Nomarski in 1955 will not be discussed in detail here, because this is essentially an image-contrasting instrument which is not designed for measuring phase differences. Interferometric microscopes are distinct from polarizing microscopes (the only other type of microscope capable of measuring phase differences) in that they can measure phase differences introduced by optically isotropic specimens.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abercrombie, M. and Dunn, G.A. (1975). Adhesions of fibroblasts to substratum during contact inhibition observed by interference reflection microscopy. Exp. Cell Res., 92, 57–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, P.B. and Lackie, J.M. (1975). Studies on intercellular invasion in vitro using rabbit peritoneal neutrophil granulocytes (PMNS) 1. Role of contact inhibition of locomotion. J Cell Biol., 65, 439–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Axelrod, D. (1981). Cell substrate contacts illuminated by total internal reflection fluorescence. J. Cell Biol., 89, 141–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, J. and Gingell, D. (1988). Contacts of chick fibroblasts on glass: results and limitations of quantitative interferometry. J. Cell Sei., 90, 215–224Google Scholar
  5. Beck, K. and Bereiter-Hahn, J. (1984). Cell damage by visible light irradiation. Eur. J. Cell Biol, 33 (SuppL 5), 6Google Scholar
  6. Bereiter-Hahn, J. (1977). Mikroskopische Spezialverfahren zur selektiven Kontraststeigerung für die automatische Bildanalyse. Microsc. Acta, Suppl. 1, 165–180Google Scholar
  7. Bereiter-Hahn, J. (1985). Computer assisted microscope interferometry by image analysis of living cells. In Cowden, R.R. and Harrison F.W. (Eds), Advances in Microscopy. Alan R. Liss, New York, pp. 27–4Google Scholar
  8. Bereiter-Hahn, J., Fox, C.H. and Thorell B. (1979). Quantitative reflection contrast microscopy of living cells. J. Cell Biol., 82, 767–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bereiter-Hahn, J., Wientzeck, C. and Bröhl, (1981). Interferometric studies of endothelial cells in primary culture. Histochemistry, 73, 269–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, A.F. and Dunn, G.A. (1989). Microinterferometry of the movement of dry matter in fibroblasts. J. Cell Sei., 92, 379–389Google Scholar
  11. Burreis, W. (1950). Contribution to the study of diatom movement. Microscope, 8, 147Google Scholar
  12. Cottier-Fox, M., Sparring, K.M., Zetterberg, A. and Fox, C.H. (1979). The process of epithelial cell attachment to glass surfaces studied by reflexion contrast microscopy. Exp. Cell Res., 118, 414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Curtis, A.S.G. (1964). The mechanism of cell adhesion to glass. A study by interference reflection microscopy. J. Cell Biol., 20, 199–215PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies, H.G., Wilkins, M.H.F., Chayen, J. and La Cour, L.F. (1954). The use of the interference microscope to determine dry mass in living cells and as a quantitative cytochemical method. J. Microsc. Sei., 95, 271–304Google Scholar
  15. Dunn, G.A. and Brown, A.F. (1986). Alignment of fibroblasts on grooved surfaces described by a simple geometric transformation. J. Cell Sci, 83, 313–340 Dunn, G.A. and Brown, A.F. (1987). A unified approach to analysing cell motility. In Heaysman, J.E.M., Middleton, C.A. and Watt, F.M. (Eds), Cell Behaviour, Shape, Adhesion and Motility. J. Cell Sei. Suppl. 8, 81–102Google Scholar
  16. Frederikse, A.M. (1935). Eine Interferenzmethode zur mikroskopischen Beobachtung lebender Zellen. Verh. I. Internat. Kongr. Electro-Radio-Biologie, 1, 535Google Scholar
  17. Gingell, D. (1981). The interpretation of interference-reflection images of spread cells: significant contributions from thin peripheral cytoplasm. J. Cell Sei., 49, 237–247Google Scholar
  18. Gingell, D. and Todd, I. (1979). Interference reflection microscopy: a quantitative theory for image interpretation and its application to cell-substratum separation measurement. Biophys. J., 26, 507–526Google Scholar
  19. Gingell, D., Todd, I. and Heavens, O.S. (1982). Quantitative interference microscopy: effect of microscope aperture. Optica Acta, 29, 901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gingell, D., Heavens, O.S. and Mellor, J.S. (1987). General electromagnetic theory of total internal reflection fluorescence: the quantitative basis for mapping cell-substratum topography. J. Cell Sei., 87, 677–693Google Scholar
  21. Haemmerli, G. and Ploem, J.S., (1979). Adhesion patterns of cell interactions revealed by reflection contrast microscopy. Exp. Cell Res., 118, 438–442Google Scholar
  22. Heath, J.P. and Dunn, G.A. (1978). Cell to substratum contacts of chick fibroblasts and their relation to the microfilament system. A correlated interference-reflection and high voltage electron microscope study. J. Cell Sci, 29, 197–212Google Scholar
  23. Inoué, S. (1986). Video Microscopy. Plenum, New York, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Izzard, C.S. and Lochner, L.R. (1976). Cell-to-substrate contacts in living fibroblasts: an interference reflection study with an evaluation of the technique. J. Cell Sei., 21, 129–159Google Scholar
  25. Izzard, C.S. and Lochner, L.R. (1980). Formation of cell-to-substrate contacts during fibroblast motility: an interference reflection study. J. Cell Sci, 42, 81–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Keller, H.U., Barandun, S., Kistler, P. and Ploem, J.S. (1979). Locomotion and adhesion of neutrophil granulocytes. Effects of albumin, fibrinogen and gamma globulins studied by reflection contrast microscopy. Exp. Cell Res., 122, 351–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Letourneau, P.C. (1979). Cell-substratum adhesion of neurite growth cones, and its role in neurite elongation. Exp. Cell Res., 124, 127–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lochner, L. and Izzard, C.S. (1973). Dynamic aspects of cell-substrate contact in fibroblast motility. J. Cell Biol, 59, 199aGoogle Scholar
  29. Mittal, A.K. and Bereiter-Hahn, J. (1985). Ionic control of locomotion and shape of epithelial cells: 1. Role of calcium influx. Cell Motil, 5, 123–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Opas, M. (1978). Interference reflection microscopy of adhesion of Amoeba proteus. J. Microsc. 112, 215–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ploem, J.S. (1975). Reflection contrast microscopy as a tool for investigation of the attachment of living cells to a glass surface. In Furth, R. (Ed.), Mononuclear Phagocytes in Immunity, Infection and Pathology. Blackwell, Oxford, London, pp. 405–421Google Scholar
  32. Preston, T.M. and King, C.A. (1978). An experimental study of the interaction between the soil amoeba Naegleria gruberi and a glass substrate during amoeboid locomotion. J. Cell Sci, 34, 145–158 Radice, G.P. (1978). Analysis of the migration of epithelial cells in vivo and in vitro. J. Cell Biol., 79, 270aGoogle Scholar
  33. Rees, D.A., Lloyd, C.W. and Thorn, D. (1977). Control of grip and stick in cell adhesion through lateral relationships of membrane glycoproteins. Nature, 267, 124–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rienitz, J. (1964). The principles of the interference microscope. In Krug, W., Rienitz, J. and Schulz, G. (Eds), Contributions to Interference Microscopy. Hilger and Watts, London, pp.15–153Google Scholar
  35. Ross, K.F.A. (1967). Phase Contrast and Interference Microscopy for Cell Biologists. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Siegbahn, M. (1932). Interferometrische Untersuchung von Kristallspaltflächen. Ark. Math. Astr. Fys., 23A, 12Google Scholar
  37. Tolansky, S. (1948). Multiple-beam Interferometry of Surfaces and Films. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Verschueren, H. (1985). Interference reflection microscopy in cell biology: methodology and applications. J. Cell Sei., 75, 279–301Google Scholar
  39. Wehland, J., Osborn, M. and Weber, K. (1979). Cell-to-substratum contacts in living cells: a direct correlation between interference-reflexion and indirect-immunofluorescence microscopy using antibodies against actin and a-actinin. J. Cell Sci., 37, 257–273PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Macmillan Press Ltd 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham A. Dunn

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations