An open-source, high resolution, automated fluorescence microscope

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors have developed an open-source high-resolution microscope that is easily accessible to scientists, students, and the general public. The microscope is specifically designed to work with incubators and can image cells in culture over long periods. The authors provide detailed instructions for building the microscope and the necessary software to run it using off-the-shelf components. The system has great potential for studying cell biology and various biological processes.

The authors' work will make scientific instruments more accessible and remove obstacles to the free diffusion of capabilities and know-how in science. This important contribution will enable more people to conduct scientific research.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Making state-of-the-art (super-resolution) microscopy widely available has been the subject of many publications in recent years as correctly referenced in the manuscript. By advocating the ideas of open-microscopy and trying to replace expensive, scientific-grade components such as lasers, cameras, objectives, and stages with cost-effective alternatives, interested researchers nowadays have a number of different frameworks to choose from. In the iteration of the theme presented here, the authors used the existing modular UC2 framework, which consists of 3D printable building blocks, and combined a cheapish laser, detector and x,y,(z) stage with expensive filters/dichroics and a very expensive high-end objective (>15k Euros). This particular choice raises a first technical question, to which extent a standard NA 1.3 oil immersion objective available for <1k would compare to the chosen NA 1.49 one.

The choice of using the UC2 framework has the advantage, that the individual building blocks can be 3D printed, although it should be mentioned that the authors used injection-molded blocks that will have a limited availability if not offered commercially by a third party. The strength of the manuscript is the tight integration of the hardware and the software (namely the implementations of imSwitch as a GUI to control data acquisition, OS SMLM algorithms for fast sub-pixel localisation and access to Napari).

The presented experimental data is convincing, demonstrating (1) extended live cell imaging both using bright-field and fluorescence in the incubator, (2) single-particle tracking of quantum dots, and (3) and STORM measurements in cells stained against tubulin.

In the following I will raise two aspects that currently limit the clarity and the potential impact of the manuscript.

First, the manuscript would benefit from further refinement. Elements in Figure 1d/e are not described properly. Figure 2c is not described in the caption. GPI-GFP is not introduced. MMS (moment scaling spectrum) could benefit from a one sentence description of what it actually is. In Figure 6, the size of the STORM and wide-field field of views are vastly different, the distances between the peaks on the tubuili are given in micrometers rather than nanometers. (more in the section on recommendations for the author)

Second, and this is the main criticism at this point, is that although all the information and data is openly available, it seems very difficult to actually build the setup due to a lack of proper documentation (as of early July 2023).
1. The bill of materials (https://github.com/openUC2/UC2-STORM-and-Fluorescence#bill-of-material) should provide a link to the commercially available items. Some items are named in German. Maybe split the BoM in commercially available and 3D printable parts (I first missed the option to scroll horizontally).
2. The links to the XY and Z stage refer to the general overview site of the UC2 project (https://github.com/openUC2/) requiring a deep dive to find the actual information.
3. Detailed building instructions are unfortunately missing. How to assemble the cubes (pCad files showing exploded views, for example)? Trouble shooting?
4. Some of the hardware details (e.g. which laser was being used, lenses, etc) should be mentioned in the manuscript (or SI)

I fully understand that providing such level of detail is very time consuming, but I hope that the authors will be able to address these shortcomings.