1. Neuroscience
  2. Physics of Living Systems

Random access parallel microscopy

  1. Mishal Ashraf
  2. Sharika Mohanan
  3. Byu Ri Sim
  4. Anthony Tam
  5. Kiamehr Rahemipour
  6. Denis Brousseau
  7. Simon Thibault
  8. Alexander D Corbett  Is a corresponding author
  9. Gil Bub  Is a corresponding author
  1. McGill University, Canada
  2. University of Exeter, United Kingdom
  3. Université Laval, Canada
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56426
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Mishal Ashraf
  2. Sharika Mohanan
  3. Byu Ri Sim
  4. Anthony Tam
  5. Kiamehr Rahemipour
  6. Denis Brousseau
  7. Simon Thibault
  8. Alexander D Corbett
  9. Gil Bub
(2021)
Random access parallel microscopy
eLife 10:e56426.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56426
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

We introduce a random access parallel (RAP) imaging modality that uses a novel design inspired by a Newtonian telescope to image multiple spatially separated samples without moving parts or robotics. This scheme enables near simultaneous image capture of multiple petri dishes and random-access imaging with sub-millisecond switching times at the full resolution of the camera. This enables the RAP system to capture long duration records from different samples in parallel, which is not possible using conventional automated microscopes. The system is demonstrated by continuously imaging multiple cardiac monolayer and Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) preparations.

Data availability

All data generated during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mishal Ashraf

    Department of Physiology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  2. Sharika Mohanan

    Physics and Astronomy, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  3. Byu Ri Sim

    Department of Physiology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. Anthony Tam

    Department of Physiology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. Kiamehr Rahemipour

    Physiology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  6. Denis Brousseau

    Department of Physics, Physical Engineering and Optics, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  7. Simon Thibault

    Department of Physics, Physical Engineering and Optics, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  8. Alexander D Corbett

    Physics and Astronomy, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    A.Corbett@exeter.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1645-5475

  9. Gil Bub

    Physiology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    For correspondence
    gilbub@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5304-0036

Funding

National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2018-05346)

  • Gil Bub

National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2016-05962)

  • Simon Thibault

Funders support enabled acquisition of equipment used in this study and also funded summer student stipends for undergraduate authors.

Copyright

© 2021, Ashraf et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,455
    views
  • 441
    downloads
  • 16
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Mishal Ashraf
  2. Sharika Mohanan
  3. Byu Ri Sim
  4. Anthony Tam
  5. Kiamehr Rahemipour
  6. Denis Brousseau
  7. Simon Thibault
  8. Alexander D Corbett
  9. Gil Bub
(2021)
Random access parallel microscopy
eLife 10:e56426.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56426

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56426

Categories and tags

Research organisms

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience

    Operation of spinal sensorimotor circuits controlling phase durations during tied-belt and split-belt locomotion after a lateral thoracic hemisection

    Ilya A Rybak, Natalia A Shevtsova ... Alain Frigon
    Research Advance

    Locomotion is controlled by spinal circuits that interact with supraspinal drives and sensory feedback from the limbs. These sensorimotor interactions are disrupted following spinal cord injury. The thoracic lateral hemisection represents an experimental model of an incomplete spinal cord injury, where connections between the brain and spinal cord are abolished on one side of the cord. To investigate the effects of such an injury on the operation of the spinal locomotor network, we used our computational model of cat locomotion recently published in eLife (Rybak et al., 2024) to investigate and predict changes in cycle and phase durations following a thoracic lateral hemisection during treadmill locomotion in tied-belt (equal left-right speeds) and split-belt (unequal left-right speeds) conditions. In our simulations, the ‘hemisection’ was always applied to the right side. Based on our model, we hypothesized that following hemisection the contralesional (‘intact’, left) side of the spinal network is mostly controlled by supraspinal drives, whereas the ipsilesional (‘hemisected’, right) side is mostly controlled by somatosensory feedback. We then compared the simulated results with those obtained during experiments in adult cats before and after a mid-thoracic lateral hemisection on the right side in the same locomotor conditions. Our experimental results confirmed many effects of hemisection on cat locomotion predicted by our simulations. We show that having the ipsilesional hindlimb step on the slow belt, but not the fast belt, during split-belt locomotion substantially reduces the effects of lateral hemisection. The model provides explanations for changes in temporal characteristics of hindlimb locomotion following hemisection based on altered interactions between spinal circuits, supraspinal drives, and somatosensory feedback.

    1. Neuroscience

    Pain-Related Memory Impairment: How does chronic pain lead to memory loss?

    Suelen Pereira, Ivan Tomsic ... Mychael V Lourenco
    Insight

    A dysfunctional signaling pathway in the hippocampus has been linked to chronic pain-related memory impairment in mice.

    1. Neuroscience

    Opioids: Finding new ways to treat overdoses

    Jill R Turner, Jocelyn Martin
    Insight

    Reversing opioid overdoses in rats using a drug that does not enter the brain prevents the sudden and severe withdrawal symptoms associated with therapeutics that target the central nervous system.