what type of microscopes are used to look at cells?

[cameron marical]

what are the types of microscopes used to look at things like viruses or cells? can you use an optical microscope? i read somewhere that optical microscopes magnify things up to 1500x. is that enough? or do they use electron and scan tunneling microscopes for this?

 

how much would it be for a telescope capable of this?

[CharonY]

There is no simple answer to the question as there is no one single way to observe cells. It always depends on what you want to see. Even optical microscopes come in different flavours depending on use (e.g. simple transmittance, fluorescence, TIR, two-photon etc.).

Most electron microscopes are somewhat damaging to the cells and prone to certain artifacts, but they can give information about cellular components (as e.g. organelles). Than there are scanning probe microscopes as STM or AFM. Especially the latter is extremely good for cell surface observations under ambient conditions, but do not get info inside the cell.

A virus is generally to small for optical instruments, if you want to have to have detailed information. But they can visualized (without details) with fluorescent techniques.

 

The prices vary a lot. Examples: a decent fluorescent microscope goes for around 50-75k, a confocal a few hundred thousand to a mill, a AFM costs around 250-500 k, a STM maybe half of it. I have not bought any electron microscopes, so I do not know the prices off the top of my head.

[cameron marical]

how much would it be for a telescope capable of this?

 

i ment microscope woops.

 

Even optical microscopes come in different flavours depending on use (e.g. simple transmittance, fluorescence, TIR, two-photon etc.).

 

out of these, what are the best for cell observation and whats the cheapest?

 

A virus is generally to small for optical instruments, if you want to have to have detailed information. But they can visualized (without details) with fluorescent techniques.

 

so are afm's the best for this? what does this stand for? i know stm is scan-tunneling-microscope, but i havent heard of the first.

 

thanks.

[CharonY]

i ment microscope woops.

I assumed as much.

 

out of these, what are the best for cell observation and whats the cheapest?

As I said, it is based on what precisely you want to see with the cell. The simple transmittance is the cheapest, obviously, with the least details.

 

AFM is an atomic force microscope. It is not necessarily the best but usually gives the most details regarding surface properties. The advantage compared to an STM is that it does not require tunneling to visualize matter, which makes it easier for mostly non-conductive biological samples.

[Mokele]

Depends on the sort of cells. You can see skeletal muscle cells under a 40x dissecting scope, or sometimes even with the naked eye.

[Theophrastus]

I'ld say 1500x magnification, with an optical microscope, is suitable for observing most types of micro cellular organisms, including various types of plant cells, amoeba, protozoa, euglena, animal cells etc., however, I suppose that this may vary further, based on what you desire to see. Electron microscopes, (TEM's and SEM's) can be used to view organelles, as well as the dark nuclei, which can be viewed relatively well, at around 400x mag. It really depends on your needs. So, what is it that you desire to use the microscope for, or rather, what is it you desire to achieve?

Edited April 9, 2009 by Theophrastus
addition of content

[CharonY]

Actually you should consider that the magnification alone won't give info on what you can see, as the resolution power is also dependent on the aperture. And in the end it is the resolution that limits what you can distinguish.

[DrDNA]

AFM is an atomic force microscope. It is not necessarily the best but usually gives the most details regarding surface properties. The advantage compared to an STM is that it does not require tunneling to visualize matter, which makes it easier for mostly non-conductive biological samples.

 

Plus, with AFM, you can image cells under physiological conditions often without fixation, even in their favorite growth media.

So, unlike EM, if the cells of interest adhere nicely to bare glass, plastic or gelatin-, collagen- or fibronectin-coated glass (for example) they can be imaged alive and fully functional.

 

Like this AFM image of a live human lung cancer cell I took a while back...

[CharonY]

Bacteria can be nicely visualized on glass alone. The only problem can be dehydration if it is not in liquid. In liquid the resolution is usually worse (due to the dampening effect of the water).

But it is great to visualize certain structures, if they are crystalline enough (so no EPS I am afraid). Or while you are at it you can also visualize DNA strands or proteins (if big enough like e.g. flagella). And considering the resolution AFMs are not that expensive anymore. Yeah, it is one of my favourite toys. Too bad that I do not have a project with it right now.

[cameron marical]

im pretty milked on money, would it be in any way possible to make a good enough for near this job microscope? like say put a magnifying glass over another over another etc... wouldnt that just do the same thing? ya, you have to adjust the spaces inbetween so their not all blurry but it seems like it would work. Right?

[Dr. Jekyll]

When it comes to microinjection of cells, I've seen quite varying magnifications used, around 50X-300X. I figure it depends a lot on the type/size of the cell, and where in the cell the injection shall be, but still it feels like rather small magnifications.

 

Can anyone elaborate some?