Working Group 1
11th Meeting, 1st of September 2021
Meeting summary
We spent the meeting reviewing the edits and comments everyone made in the first two pages of the main document. Amongst other things, we discussed adding more specificity to the goal of this protocol in the introduction, proposed to emphasize Laser Safety remarks with bold text, references and symbols, to add a CAD file of Roland’s holder, and write system specific instructions to the appendix section. A Zotero group library has been created and link sent to all (please communicate with Nathalie if you need help including a reference).
10th meeting, 2nd of June 2021
Meeting summary
We reviewed comments in the main document, discussing comments and suggestions and adding tips on safety, environmental conditions, and type of laser used. We also discussed the potential damages a laser can cause to an objective, the difference in laser power measurements obtained from different laser power meter brands/sensors and the effect of temperature on your measurements. The subgroups “Automation” and “Powermeter” reported briefly their progress.
9th meeting, 5th of May 2021
Meeting summary
We reviewed comments in the main document, discussed discrepancy between measurements made with different power meter models on the same microscope and same laser, commented different graphs to display all measurements made by the group in their respective labs so far, to help define what a “stable” behavior is. We decided to set up a Zotero shared library for reference articles. The automation sub-group presented the project of a GitHub repository for scripts.
Working Group 2
Working Group 3
Working Group 4
8th meeting, 20th of July 2021
6th meeting, 18th of May 2021
Meeting summary
We have generated a detailed protocol and are currently testing the following parameters: 1) how does bead size affect the coregistration accuracy. We test 200nm, 1µm, and 5µm beads at the moment. 2) are the suggested settings from the iso manual neccessary, or can we generate a more convenient protocol. We test the impact of pixel size and z-step size (16nm/40nm, and 70/200nm).
From first measurements, we have seen that a variation from speciment preparation can be rather high. Thus, one of us (Aurelien) is creating the samples for the rest of WG4.
Working Group 5
8th meeting, 6th of May 2021
Meeting summary
WG 5 have principally been testing beads for PSF measurements, using different formats (polystyrene, DNA origami, nanodots, printed patterns). We have identified an optimal size range for confocal and widefield imaging, and a re still testing the ease of use, functionality and robustness of several of these formats. We have begun a draft methodology which we propose to publish for Confocal PSF measurement using beads before developing the method further for other modalities, as well as investigating alternative methods, such as mirrors for axial resolution tests.