Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Passive birefringent crystals that split each femtosecond pulse into a burst of sub-pulses let two-photon light-sheet microscopy image live zebrafish hearts and neural activity at kilohertz frame rates with more than 150 million pixels per

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:08 UTC pith:C3C5KT3N

load-bearing objection A well-built pulse-splitting add-on with convincing matched controls; the 'optimal frequency' claim leans on an extrapolated scaling law, but that is a secondary weakness. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.17783 v1 pith:C3C5KT3N submitted 2025-12-19 physics.optics physics.app-phphysics.bio-ph

Two-photon light-sheet live imaging at kilohertz frame rate using birefringence-based pulse splitting

Lei Zhu , Dale Gottlieb , Vincent Maioli , Antoine Hubert , Fr\'ed\'eric Druon , Pierre Mahou , Emmanuel Beaurepaire , Willy Supatto This is my paper
classification physics.optics physics.app-phphysics.bio-ph
keywords two-photon light-sheet microscopybirefringent pulse splittingin vivo imagingpulse frequency optimizationphotodamagezebrafishred fluorophoreshigh-speed imaging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Two birefringent YVO4 crystals, a half-wave plate, and a polarizer turn each laser pulse into a collinear burst of 1, 2, or 4 sub-pulses separated by 7–15 ps, giving microscopists an adjustable average pulse frequency without replacing the laser. Using this splitter, the authors show that two-photon light-sheet microscopy of red fluorophores in live zebrafish embryos is optimal near 1070 nm with an average pulse frequency of 16 MHz, a regime that is ordinarily out of reach with a fixed-4 MHz wavelength-tunable source. They report kilohertz frame rates (up to 1052 Hz), pixel rates above 150 MHz, signal above 10 photons per pixel, and mean power around 100 mW, with photobleaching and nonlinear photodamage behavior unchanged whether pulses arrive evenly spaced or in bursts. The paper also shows that moving from 1030 to 1070 nm lowers water absorption by a factor of 0.6 and roughly doubles mCherry two-photon absorption, so a higher mean power can be used before heating becomes limiting. If these results hold, the scheme offers a low-cost, alignment-free way to optimize illumination parameters across multiphoton microscopy, not just light-sheet imaging.

Core claim

The central claim is that the temporal profile of a femtosecond excitation laser can be deliberately reshaped by cascaded birefringent crystals without degrading imaging performance, and that this reshaping unlocks the operating point that maximizes two-photon fluorescence while respecting heating and photodamage limits. In a two-photon light-sheet microscope, the authors obtain equivalent 2PEF signal whether pulses are spread evenly at 4 or 8 MHz or bunched at 2×2 or 2×2×2 MHz from a 2 or 4 MHz source, and the nonlinear photodamage threshold tracks the same power-versus-frequency scaling law in both cases. With 1070 nm excitation and a 16 MHz average pulse frequency, they capture the beatin

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is a two-stage birefringence-based pulse splitter built from a-cut YVO4 crystals (10 mm and 20 mm thick), a half-wave plate, and a polarizer. Each crystal separates a pulse into ordinary and extraordinary polarization components that travel at different speeds, producing collinear sub-pulses delayed by 7.6 ps and 15.2 ps; rotating the crystals' optical axes selects whether one, two, or four sub-pulses emerge per source pulse, so a fixed 4 MHz source can be converted into 4, 8, or 16 MHz average pulse rates. Because the beams remain collinear and the splitter is nearly lossless, it can be inserted into any pulsed illumination path, and the chosen frequency is used to

Load-bearing premise

The prediction that 16 MHz is the optimal pulse frequency rests on the assumption, stated in Methods VIII A, that the photodamage scaling exponent n=5.8 measured at 1030 nm is unchanged at 1070 nm—and the 16 MHz photodamage threshold at 1070 nm was not directly measured (mean power was capped near 130 mW), so the optimum is an extrapolation.

What would settle it

Directly measure the nonlinear photodamage threshold for a 16 MHz average pulse train at 1070 nm (for example, 2×2×4 MHz with power above 130 mW) and compare it with the scaling-law prediction from the 4 and 8 MHz points; if it falls off the line, or if the 40% upward shift seen at 1030 nm is not reproduced, the predicted optimum is wrong. A second check is to measure mCherry's two-photon action spectrum near 1070 nm to verify the factor of about 2.2 signal gain over 1030 nm.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Two-photon light-sheet microscopes can operate at kilohertz frame rates and more than 150 MHz pixel rates while staying below the nonlinear photodamage threshold and below about 1 °C sample heating, at least for red fluorophores in zebrafish.
  • Burst illumination with 7–15 ps sub-pulse delays behaves like evenly spaced illumination at the same average frequency: 2PEF signal, axial PSF (~3.5 µm), and photobleaching rates are statistically unchanged.
  • The nonlinear photodamage threshold depends on average pulse frequency and peak intensity, not on whether pulses are evenly distributed; the two-stage splitter even raised P_NL by about 40% over the scaling-law prediction without losing 2PEF signal.
  • Shifting excitation from 1030 to 1070 nm reduces water-mediated heating by a factor of 0.6 and increases mCherry two-photon absorption by about 2.2, so the same signal can be obtained with less thermal load.
  • Because the splitter's ratio is changed by rotating crystals and works on any pulsed source, it provides a generic route to reach predicted optimal pulse frequencies without buying a new laser.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An extension the paper does not pursue: because the splitting ratio is set by crystal thickness and number of stages, the same scheme could scale to 8 or 16 sub-pulses per source pulse, or to other wavelengths by selecting crystals with different birefringence.
  • The ~40% P_NL increase seen with the two-stage splitter at 1030 nm is presented as likely due to crystal imperfections; if instead it is reproducible and controllable, intraburst delay could become a deliberate lever for raising photodamage thresholds.
  • The optimization logic—combining water absorption, fluorophore two-photon absorption, and the n-exponent scaling law—is transferable to other red indicators and species; the authors only test mCherry and jRGECO1b in zebrafish.
  • Point-scanning two-photon microscopes cap their pixel rate at the laser repetition rate; this paper shows light-sheet geometry plus pulse splitting breaks that link, so a natural next step is combining it with multifocal excitation to push pixel rates further.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a birefringence-based pulse-splitting scheme for two-photon light-sheet microscopy. Two cascaded YVO4 crystals convert each laser pulse into a burst of 1, 2, or 4 collinear sub-pulses with 7–15 ps delays, thereby multiplying the average pulse frequency (up to 2×2×) while preserving beam collinearity and >98% transmission. The authors validate the approach by comparing 2PEF signal, PSF, photobleaching, and nonlinear photodamage thresholds with and without the splitter at the same effective average frequency, using a 1030-nm laser with tunable repetition rate. They then use the splitter to reach 16 MHz average frequency from a fixed 4-MHz 1070-nm source, and demonstrate kilohertz frame-rate in vivo imaging of beating hearts (mCherry nuclei) and neuronal calcium dynamics (jRGECO1b) in zebrafish, with >150-MHz pixel rates and ~10 photons/pixel at ~100 mW mean power. The central claim is that this splitter enables optimal signal-to-photodamage illumination for fast 2P light-sheet imaging.

Significance. The strength of the work is the careful experimental validation of the pulse splitter as an optical tool: matched comparisons show no degradation of resolution, signal, or bleaching when pulses are delivered in bursts rather than uniformly, and P_NL follows the expected power-law under 2× splitting at both wavelengths. The in vivo imaging results are impressive and support the practical usefulness of the approach. However, the quantitative 'optimal frequency' claim (16 MHz) rests on an extrapolation of an empirical scaling law from 1030 nm to 1070 nm and on a configuration (2×2×) whose P_NL deviates from that law by ~40% with an unexplained mechanism. The missing direct 1070-nm P_NL data at 16 MHz is explicitly acknowledged. These gaps affect the optimization claim, not the basic effectiveness of the pulse splitter.

major comments (3)
  1. [§VIII A, Eq. (1); §II D, Table II] The predicted optimal frequency of 16 MHz relies on the scaling law P_NL ∝ f^((n−1)/n) with n=5.8 measured at 1030 nm, and the text explicitly 'assume[s] that n does not vary between 1030 nm and 1070 nm.' The only 1070-nm P_NL points (4 and 8 MHz, Table II) are two measurements consistent with a wide range of n, and the paper states that P_NL for 2×2×4 MHz at 1070 nm could not be measured because the available mean power was limited to ~130 mW. Since the imaging demonstration is performed at 110 mW in that exact configuration, the safety margin relative to the nonlinear photodamage threshold is inferred, not measured. Please provide a direct measurement at 1070 nm/16 MHz if possible, or a sensitivity analysis over the plausible range of n and prefactor showing that 110 mW remains below P_NL.
  2. [§II D, Fig. 4 and Table II] For the 2×2× configuration at 1030 nm, measured P_NL values are ~40% higher than Eq. (1) (233.3 mW vs ~176 mW at 8 MHz; 417.2 mW vs ~313 mW at 16 MHz). The text attributes this to 'minor spatial displacement' without presenting evidence. Because the 16-MHz imaging demonstration uses exactly this 2×2× mode, the deviation means the scaling law used to predict the 1070-nm optimum is not validated for the configuration employed. The authors should directly characterize the spatial overlap/beam displacement after the crystals (e.g., knife-edge or camera measurements) and discuss how the observed P_NL shift affects the predicted optimum.
  3. [§II D, Fig. 4 and Table II] The claim that nonlinear photodamage is 'independent of wavelength within this range' is not supported by the tabulated data. At 4 MHz the 1070-nm P_NL without splitting is 77.9 mW, while the 1030-nm value is 99.1 mW; at 8 MHz the 1070-nm 2× value is 150.6 mW versus 172.0 mW for 1030 nm. If the prefactor differs with wavelength, the safety estimate for the 1070-nm/110-mW imaging condition should use the appropriate prefactor; if the apparent offset is not significant, a statistical test or explanation is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and text] Typographical spacing errors appear throughout: '150M Hzpixel', '0.1T W·cm −2', 'in vivo2P', '3.5µm' etc. Please standardize units and spacing.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption refers to experiments '(c-d)' but the figure has panels (a)-(c). The bleaching data appear in (b) and (c); please correct the panel references.
  3. [Table I caption] The 8-MHz row uses 30-mm crystal thickness, but the main text (§II A) states that 2× uses only the 20-mm crystal. The Methods explain that the second crystal is bypassed by rotation, so the beam still passes through it. This should be clarified in the table caption to avoid confusion.
  4. [§VIII A] The P_TE values (70 mW at 1030 nm, 115 mW at 1070 nm) are stated without derivation or explicit reference. A brief description of the heating model or a citation to the source of these thresholds would aid reproducibility.
  5. [Fig. 1(c) and notation] The notation '2×2×2 MHz' (and similar) is confusing because it mixes the splitting factor with the resulting average frequency. Consider using a clearer convention, e.g., '4×2 MHz' or 'burst of 4 at 2 MHz', consistently throughout the text and figures.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Optimal-frequency prediction is imported from the authors' own 1030-nm scaling law; pulse-splitter validation itself is independent.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Methods VIII A (Eq. 1 and following); Results II E; Fig. 6b]
    "The scaling law established in [14], for a similar biological sample at 1030 nm shows that nonlinear photodamage has an order of n and scales with the laser pulse frequency f as follows: P_NL ∝ f^((n-1)/n), n=5.8. ... We assume that n does not vary between 1030 nm and 1070 nm."

    The claimed optimal pulse frequency of 16 MHz is not derived from first principles or from direct 1070-nm high-frequency data; it is computed by applying Eq. 1 from the authors' own prior work [14], whose exponent n=5.8 was fitted at 1030 nm and is carried to 1070 nm by explicit assumption. The 16-MHz optimization claim is therefore a consequence of that fitted law plus an assumption, not an independent test of it. The paper does not measure P_NL for the 2×2×4 MHz configuration at 1070 nm (power limited to about 130 mW), and at 1030 nm the 2×2× configuration already deviates ~40% from the Eq. 1 prediction (233.3 mW vs ~176 mW at 8 MHz). Thus the 'optimal' label and the safety margin for the imaging demonstrations rest on a self-cited scaling law. However, the central technical claim—that b

full rationale

The core instrumental demonstration is not circular: the pulse splitter's effect on 2PEF signal, photobleaching, spatial resolution, and nonlinear photodamage is compared directly against a frequency-tunable laser at matched average pulse frequencies, and those comparisons are experimental rather than derived from the model being tested. The wavelength choice is supported by external water/mCherry absorption spectra and by the paper's own HBR heating measurements. The circularity concern is concentrated in the optimization claim: the 16-MHz optimum is imported from ref. [14], a same-group paper whose empirical scaling law (n=5.8, established at 1030 nm) is assumed valid at 1070 nm without a direct 16-MHz P_NL measurement. This makes the 'optimal' designation a restatement of a self-cited fitted law rather than an independent prediction, but it does not reduce the pulse-splitting technique itself to its inputs. Hence score 4: some load-bearing self-citation with independent central content, but not a full by-construction circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central optimization rests on empirical scaling laws and thermal limits from the authors' own prior work; the pulse-splitting device itself introduces no new physical entities. The listed free parameters and assumptions are the load-bearing inputs that could bias the 'optimal' illumination claim.

free parameters (2)
  • Nonlinear photodamage exponent n = 5.8
    Empirical exponent from ref [14] used in Eq. (1) to predict the optimal pulse frequency; assumed constant from 1030 to 1070 nm.
  • Thermal-effect threshold mean power P_TE = 115 mW at 1070 nm (70 mW at 1030 nm)
    From ref [14] and water absorption; defines the thermal constraint P_imaging ≤ P_TE used to select 16 MHz as optimal.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Nonlinear photodamage threshold scales as P_NL ∝ f^((n-1)/n) with n=5.8 (Eq. 1)
    Empirical scaling law from the authors' prior work (ref [14]); used to predict optimal pulse frequency.
  • domain assumption Heart-beat-rate increase is a linear proxy for sample temperature and photodamage
    Established in ref [14] and used for HBR measurements in this work.
  • domain assumption mCherry two-photon absorption and water absorption spectra from public databases are accurate in this regime
    Used to select 1070 nm as the optimal wavelength.
  • domain assumption Sub-pulse delays of 7–15 ps do not alter photobleaching or nonlinear photodamage relative to evenly spaced pulses
    Tested for photobleaching (Fig. 2) and PNL (Fig. 4) at several frequencies; assumed generalizable to 16 MHz and 1070 nm.
  • domain assumption The exponent n is independent of wavelength from 1030 to 1070 nm
    Stated in Methods VIII A; partially tested at 4 and 8 MHz but not at 16 MHz/1070 nm.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15672 in / 12611 out tokens · 128343 ms · 2026-08-03T15:08:49.384741+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Multiphoton microscopy is widely used for live imaging. However, its acquisition speed remains limited by fluorophore emission rates and photodamage. To increase the pixel rate of a two-photon microscope beyond a few megahertz (MHz), multi-point parallelized schemes have been proposed. Two-photon (2P) light-sheet microscopy emerges as an effective approach for high-speed multiphoton imaging of live specimens, as it enables parallelized excitation while minimizing the required laser power. However, optimizing the signal-to-photodamage ratio in 2P light-sheet microscopy requires to precisely control the illumination parameters, including both wavelength and pulse frequency. Since conventional femtosecond laser sources generally do not allow independent modulation of these parameters, the development of low-cost, efficient and robust strategies to modulate the temporal excitation profile is essential to fully exploit the advantages of 2P light-sheet microscopy. Here, we introduce a compact pulse splitting scheme that meets these criteria. We used cascaded birefringent crystals to convert each excitation laser pulse into an adjustable sequence of collinear sub-pulses. We demonstrate its effectiveness in optimizing 2P light-sheet imaging of live zebrafish embryos. We analyze the impact of pulse splitting on photobleaching, nonlinear photodamage, and imaging performance. Additionally, we demonstrate high-speed 2P imaging of the beating heart and brain calcium dynamics using red fluorophores in live embryos. We achieve kilohertz imaging frame rate, reaching more than 150 MHz pixel rates with fluorescent signal levels above 10 $photons.pixel^{-1}$ using a laser mean power and a peak intensity in the range of 100 mW and 0.1 $TW.cm^{-2}$ at the sample, respectively. This adjustable pulse-splitting scheme allows full advantage to be taken of light-sheet illumination for fast in vivo 2P imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.17783 by Antoine Hubert, Dale Gottlieb, Emmanuel Beaurepaire, Fr\'ed\'eric Druon, Lei Zhu, Pierre Mahou, Vincent Maioli, Willy Supatto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Principle of birefringence-based pulse splitting with linearly polarized output: (i) When the input pulse polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Analysis of 2PEF signals and photon bleaching effect. (a) Violin plots comparing the 2PEF signals with and without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Experimental investigation of wavelength-dependent linear heating based on water absorption and zebrafish embryonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Quantification of nonlinear photodamage threshold using zebrafish HBR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. High-speed 2P light-sheet imaging of beating heart and neuronal activity in live zebrafish embryos. (a) 4D reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Prediction of optimal laser parameter for live imaging of red fluorophores. (a) Comparison of the 2P absorption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Quantification of signal detection level in cells based on electron counts. (a) Captured images from a 2000-frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references

  1. [1]

    J. Wu, N. Ji, and K. K. Tsia, Speed scaling in multiphoton fluorescence microscopy, Nature Photonics15, 800 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    J. Wu, Y. Liang, S. Chen, C.-L. Hsu, M. Chavarha, S. W. Evans, D. Shi, M. Z. Lin, K. K. Tsia, and N. Ji, Kilohertz two-photon fluorescence microscopy imaging of neural activity in vivo, Nature Methods17, 287 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Zhang, O

    T. Zhang, O. Hernandez, R. Chrapkiewicz, A. Shai, M. J. Wagner, Y. Zhang, C.-H. Wu, J. Z. Li, M. Inoue, Y. Gong, B. Ahanonu, H. Zeng, H. Bito, and M. J. Schnitzer, Kilohertz two-photon brain imaging in awake mice, Nature Methods 16, 1119 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    S. Xiao, J. T. Giblin, D. A. Boas, and J. Mertz, High-throughput deep tissue two-photon microscopy at kilohertz frame rates, Optica10, 763 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Podgorski and G

    K. Podgorski and G. Ranganathan, Brain heating induced by near-infrared lasers during multiphoton microscopy, Journal of Neurophysiology116, 1012 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Charan, B

    K. Charan, B. Li, M. Wang, C. P. Lin, and C. Xu, Fiber-based tunable repetition rate source for deep tissue two-photon fluorescence microscopy, Biomedical Optics Express9, 2304 (2018). 15

    2018

  7. [7]

    Wang and C

    T. Wang and C. Xu, Three-photon neuronal imaging in deep mouse brain, Optica7, 947 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    N. Ji, J. C. Magee, and E. Betzig, High-speed, low-photodamage nonlinear imaging using passive pulse splitters, Nature Methods5, 197 (2008)

    2008

  9. [9]

    Hopt and E

    A. Hopt and E. Neher, Highly Nonlinear Photodamage in Two-Photon Fluorescence Microscopy, Biophysical Journal80, 2029 (2001)

    2029

  10. [10]

    P. Luu, S. E. Fraser, and F. Schneider, More than double the fun with two-photon excitation microscopy, Communications biology7, 364 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    Demas, J

    J. Demas, J. Manley, F. Tejera, K. Barber, H. Kim, F. M. Traub, B. Chen, and A. Vaziri, High-speed, cortex-wide volumetric recording of neuroactivity at cellular resolution using light beads microscopy, Nature Methods18, 1103 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    T. V. Truong, W. Supatto, D. S. Koos, J. M. Choi, and S. E. Fraser, Deep and fast live imaging with two-photon scanned light-sheet microscopy, Nature Methods8, 757 (2011)

    2011

  13. [13]

    Supatto, T

    W. Supatto, T. V. Truong, D. D´ ebarre, and E. Beaurepaire, Advances in multiphoton microscopy for imaging embryos, Current Opinion in Genetics & Development Developmental mechanisms, patterning and evolution,21, 538 (2011)

    2011

  14. [14]

    Maioli, A

    V. Maioli, A. Boniface, P. Mahou, J. F. Ortas, L. Abdeladim, E. Beaurepaire, and W. Supatto, Fast in vivo multiphoton light-sheet microscopy with optimal pulse frequency, Biomedical Optics Express11, 6012 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    F. M. Gasparoli, A. Escobet-Montalb´ an, J. Early, G. D. Bruce, and K. Dholakia, Is laser repetition rate important for two-photon light sheet microscopy?, OSA Continuum3, 2935 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    H. E. Bates, R. R. Alfano, and N. Schiller, Picosecond pulse stacking in calcite, Applied Optics18, 947 (1979)

    1979

  17. [17]

    S. Zhou, D. Ouzounov, H. Li, I. Bazarov, B. Dunham, C. Sinclair, and F. W. Wise, Efficient temporal shaping of ultrashort pulses with birefringent crystals, Applied Optics46, 8488 (2007)

    2007

  18. [18]

    S. Zhou, F. W. Wise, and D. G. Ouzounov, Divided-pulse amplification of ultrashort pulses, Optics Letters32, 871 (2007)

    2007

  19. [19]

    Daniault, M

    L. Daniault, M. Hanna, D. N. Papadopoulos, Y. Zaouter, E. Mottay, F. Druon, and P. Georges, High peak-power stretcher- free femtosecond fiber amplifier using passive spatio-temporal coherent combining, Optics Express20, 21627 (2012)

    2012

  20. [20]

    Stachowiak, J

    D. Stachowiak, J. Bogus lawski, A. G luszek, Z. Laszczych, M. Wojtkowski, and G. Sobo´ n, Frequency-doubled femtosecond Er-doped fiber laser for two-photon excited fluorescence imaging, Biomedical Optics Express11, 4431 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    J. Song, J. Kang, U. Kang, H. S. Nam, H. J. Kim, R. H. Kim, J. W. Kim, and H. Yoo, SNR enhanced high-speed two-photon microscopy using a pulse picker and time gating detection, Scientific Reports13, 14244 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    S. A. Engelmann, A. Tomar, A. L. Woods, and A. K. Dunn, Pulse train gating to improve signal generation for in vivo two-photon fluorescence microscopy, Neurophotonics10, 045006 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    G. d. Vito, P. Ricci, L. Turrini, V. Gavryusev, C. M¨ ullenbroich, N. Tiso, F. Vanzi, L. Silvestri, and F. S. Pavone, Effects of excitation light polarization on fluorescence emission in two-photon light-sheet microscopy, Biomedical Optics Express 11, 4651 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    M. N. Polyanskiy, Refractiveindex.info database of optical constants, Scientific Data11, 94 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Pachitariu and C

    M. Pachitariu and C. Stringer, Cellpose 2.0: how to train your own model, Nature Methods19, 1634 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Y. Mu, D. V. Bennett, M. Rubinov, S. Narayan, C.-T. Yang, M. Tanimoto, B. D. Mensh, L. L. Looger, and M. B. Ahrens, Glia Accumulate Evidence that Actions Are Futile and Suppress Unsuccessful Behavior, Cell178, 27 (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    H. Dana, B. Mohar, Y. Sun, S. Narayan, A. Gordus, J. P. Hasseman, G. Tsegaye, G. T. Holt, A. Hu, D. Walpita, R. Patel, J. J. Macklin, C. I. Bargmann, M. B. Ahrens, E. R. Schreiter, V. Jayaraman, L. L. Looger, K. Svoboda, and D. S. Kim, Sensitive red protein calcium indicators for imaging neural activity, eLife5, e12727 (2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    Kannan, G

    M. Kannan, G. Vasan, C. Huang, S. Haziza, J. Z. Li, H. Inan, M. J. Schnitzer, and V. A. Pieribone, Fast, in vivo voltage imaging using a red fluorescent indicator, Nature Methods15, 1108 (2018)

    2018

  29. [29]

    Kazemipour, O

    A. Kazemipour, O. Novak, D. Flickinger, J. S. Marvin, A. S. Abdelfattah, J. King, P. M. Borden, J. J. Kim, S. H. Al- Abdullatif, P. E. Deal, E. W. Miller, E. R. Schreiter, S. Druckmann, K. Svoboda, L. L. Looger, and K. Podgorski, Kilohertz frame-rate two-photon tomography, Nature Methods16, 778 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    6a), the optimal excitation wavelength for enhancing the 2PEF signal while minimizing thermal effects is 1070nm

    (Fig. 6a), the optimal excitation wavelength for enhancing the 2PEF signal while minimizing thermal effects is 1070nm. This wavelength coincides with a local minimum in water absorption, allowing for higher mean power without inducing excessive heating. Additionally, 1070nmis near the peak of mCherry absorption, thereby maximizing the 2PEF signal. We note...

    2000

  31. [31]

    N. C. Shaner, R. E. Campbell, P. A. Steinbach, B. N. G. Giepmans, A. E. Palmer, and R. Y. Tsien, Improved monomeric red, orange and yellow fluorescent proteins derived from discosoma sp. red fluorescent protein, Nature Biotechnology22, 1567 (2004)

    2004

  32. [32]

    Liebling, A

    M. Liebling, A. S. Forouhar, M. Gharib, S. E. Fraser, and M. E. Dickinson, Four-dimensional cardiac imaging in living embryos via postacquisition synchronization of nongated slice sequences, Journal of Biomedical Optics10, 054001 (2005)

    2005

  33. [33]

    Mandracchia, X

    B. Mandracchia, X. Hua, C. Guo, J. Son, T. Urner, and S. Jia, Fast and accurate sCMOS noise correction for fluorescence microscopy, Nature Communications11, 94 (2020)

    2020

  34. [34]

    G. d. Vito, L. Turrini, C. M¨ ullenbroich, P. Ricci, G. Sancataldo, G. Mazzamuto, N. Tiso, L. Sacconi, D. Fanelli, L. Silvestri, F. Vanzi, and F. S. Pavone, Fast whole-brain imaging of seizures in zebrafish larvae by two-photon light-sheet microscopy, Biomedical Optics Express13, 1516 (2022)

    2022