The eduWOSM: a benchtop advanced microscope for education and research

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Carter et al. present the eduWOSM imaging platform, a promising development in open-source microscopy for educational purposes. The paper outlines the construction and setup of this versatile microscope, demonstrating its capabilities through three key examples: single fluorophore tracking of tubulin heterodimers in gliding microtubules, 4D deconvolution imaging and tracking of chromosome movements in dividing human cells, and automated single-particle tracking in vitro and in live cells, with motion classified into sub-diffusive, diffusive, and super-diffusive behaviors.

The paper is well-written and could be strengthened by providing more empirical data on its performance, addressing potential limitations, and offering detailed insights into its educational impact. The project holds great potential and more discussion on long-term support and broader applications would provide a more comprehensive view of its relevance in different contexts.

Strengths:

(1) The eduWOSM addresses a crucial need in education, providing research-quality imaging at a lower cost (<$10k). The fact that it is open-source adds significant value, enabling broad accessibility even in under resourced areas.
(2) There is availability of extensive resources, including a dedicated website, YouTube channel, and comprehensive tutorial guides to help users replicate the microscope.
(3) The compact, portable, and stable design makes it easy to build multiple systems for use in diverse environments, including crowded labs and classrooms. This is further enhanced by the fact multiple kind of imaging experiments can be run on the system, from live imaging to super-resolution imaging.
(4) The paper highlights the user-friendly nature of the platform, with the imaging examples in the paper being acquired by undergrad students.

Weaknesses:

(1) The paper mentions the microscope is suitable not just for education but even for research purposes. This claim needs validation through quantitative comparison to existing research-grade microscopes in terms of resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, and other key metrics. Adding more rigorous comparisons would solidify its credibility for research use, which would immensely increase the potential of the microscope.
(2) The open-source microscope field is crowded with various options catering to hobby, educational, and research purposes (e.g., openFLexure, Flamingo, Octopi, etc.). The paper would benefit from discussing whether any aspects set the eduWOSM platform apart or fulfill specific roles that other microscopes do not.
(3) While the eduWOSM platform is designed to be user-friendly, the paper would benefit from discussing whether the microscope can be successfully built and operated by users without direct help from the authors. It's important to know if someone with basic technical knowledge, relying solely on the provided resources (website, YouTube tutorials, and documentation), can independently assemble, calibrate, and operate the eduWOSM.
(4) Ensuring long-term support and maintenance of the platform is crucial. The paper would benefit from addressing how the eduWOSM developers plan to support updates, improvements, or troubleshooting.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The main strength of this work is the impressive performance of a microscope assembled for a fraction of the cost of a commercial, turnkey system. The authors have created a very clever design that removes everything that is not essential. They show compelling time-lapse data looking at single molecules, tracking particles visible in brightfield mode, and looking at cell division with multiple labels in a live cell preparation.

The weaknesses of the paper include:
(1) the lack of more comprehensive explanations of the microscope and what it takes to build and operate it.
For example, the dimensions of the microscope, how samples are mounted, which lenses are compatible, and whether eduWOSMs have been built by groups other than the authors would be useful information.
(2) the absence of more detailed descriptions of some of the experiments, such as frame rates and Z-stack information.
(3) the lack of standardized measures of performance.
For example, images of subresolution tetraspeck beads and measurements of PSF would provide estimates on resolution in XY, resolution in Z, axial chromatic aberrations and lateral chromatic aberrations. Repeating these measurements on different eduWOSMs will provide an idea of how reliably the performance can be achieved.
If these issues were addressed, it would make it more likely that other groups could build and operate this system successfully.

Overall, the authors have designed and built an impressive system at low cost. Providing a bit more information in the manuscript would make it much more likely that other laboratories could replicate this design in their own environments.

Author response:

Both reviewers made thoughtful and constructive comments, suggesting improvements that we are keen to provide. The comments fall under 3 headings (1) Further validation of the design, regarding both optical performance and utility, for both education and research (2) Further description and facilitation of the build process and (3) Further description of future plans, in particular plans for dissemination and long-term support. We think these requirements will be best served by adding new content to our Github site and our YouTube channel. We will create this new content and provide a revised manuscript in which these materials are linked from our existing narrative.