$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Time-lapse imaging of living tissue provides visual access to dynamical structure-function relations that cannot be appreciated in fixed or living preparations imaged at a single point in time. Often, however, the tradeoff for access to temporal information is a decrease in optical resolution. High numerical aperture oil-immersion objectives are impractical in living tissue because of their narrow range of focus, leaving water immersion or dry objectives as the only alternatives. Moreover, the increased resolution afforded by confocal optics cannot be utilized in some living preparations due to phototoxicity from the relatively high levels of illumination required1,2. Lastly, while several real-time or time-lapse optical techniques are available that offer enhanced resolution, their applicability is limited to preparations where structures of interest can be positioned within a few hundred nanometers of the objective1. The method described makes use of relatively low-cost equipment, is versatile, yet offers improved resolution compared to more commonly-used time-lapse techniques. It is intended for use in individual laboratories as well as imaging facilities.
The method utilizes conventional epifluorescence microscopy, combined with a sensitive digital camera and with hardware designed to rapidly acquire sets of images at slightly different focal planes (z-stacks). Each z-stack is digitally deconvolved to increase resolution. One feature of 3D time-lapse (4D) imaging is precise tracking of moving organelles or other structures. When properly set up, imaged structures do not go out of focus, and movement in all three directions can be observed and quantified. Thus it is impossible for a stained structure to disappear over one or more time-lapse frames merely by drifting above or below a narrow focal plane. The method also serves as a sensitive tool for assessing the interactions and possible fusion of small structures. Conventional epifluorescence or confocal images of structures near the diffraction limit (a few hundred nm) do not confirm fusion even if merged images show overlap of their respective labels3. Fusion is suggested, but it remains possible that the objects are separated horizontally or vertically by a distance that is below the diffraction limit. Three- or four-dimensional imaging, in contrast, permits viewing the objects in each of three orthogonal directions. The appearance of fusion in all three views increases the level of certainty. And, in some living preparations, directed or Brownian movement of putatively fused objects provides further proof when both labels move together in time. Of course, when near the diffraction limit the level of certainty in discerning structures from background, or showing that they contain two dyes (fusion), is not absolute. If applicable, specialized techniques, such as fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)4, are more appropriate.