Response to Comment on “Cell nuclei have lower refractive index and mass density than cytoplasm”

Response to Comment on “Cell nuclei have lower refractive index and mass density than cytoplasm” In a recent study entitled “Cell nuclei have lower refractive index and mass density than cytoplasm,” we provided strong evidence indicating that the nuclear refractive index (RI) is lower than the RI of the cytoplasm for several cell lines. In a complementary study in 2017, entitled “Is the nuclear refractive index lower than cytoplasm? Validation of phase measurements and implications for light scattering technologies,” Steelman et al. observed a lower nuclear RI also for other cell lines and ruled out methodological error sources such as phase wrapping and scattering effects. Recently, Yurkin composed a comment on these 2 publications, entitled “How a phase image of a cell with nucleus refractive index smaller than that of the cytoplasm should look like?,” putting into question the methods used for measuring the cellular and nuclear RI in the aforementioned publications by suggesting that a lower nuclear RI would produce a characteristic dip in the measured phase profile in situ. We point out the difficulty of identifying this dip in the presence of other cell organelles, noise, or blurring due to the imaging point spread function. Furthermore, we mitigate Yurkin's concerns regarding the ability of the simple‐transmission approximation to compare cellular and nuclear RI by analyzing a set of phase images with a novel, scattering‐based approach. We conclude that the absence of a characteristic dip in the measured phase profiles does not contradict the usage of the simple‐transmission approximation for the determination of the average cellular or nuclear RI. Our response can be regarded as an addition to the response by Steelman, Eldridge and Wax. We kindly ask the reader to attend to their thorough ascertainment prior to reading our response. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Biophotonics Wiley

Response to Comment on “Cell nuclei have lower refractive index and mass density than cytoplasm”

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/response-to-comment-on-cell-nuclei-have-lower-refractive-index-and-ClRsgbtmtY
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2018 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
ISSN
1864-063X
eISSN
1864-0648
D.O.I.
10.1002/jbio.201800095
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In a recent study entitled “Cell nuclei have lower refractive index and mass density than cytoplasm,” we provided strong evidence indicating that the nuclear refractive index (RI) is lower than the RI of the cytoplasm for several cell lines. In a complementary study in 2017, entitled “Is the nuclear refractive index lower than cytoplasm? Validation of phase measurements and implications for light scattering technologies,” Steelman et al. observed a lower nuclear RI also for other cell lines and ruled out methodological error sources such as phase wrapping and scattering effects. Recently, Yurkin composed a comment on these 2 publications, entitled “How a phase image of a cell with nucleus refractive index smaller than that of the cytoplasm should look like?,” putting into question the methods used for measuring the cellular and nuclear RI in the aforementioned publications by suggesting that a lower nuclear RI would produce a characteristic dip in the measured phase profile in situ. We point out the difficulty of identifying this dip in the presence of other cell organelles, noise, or blurring due to the imaging point spread function. Furthermore, we mitigate Yurkin's concerns regarding the ability of the simple‐transmission approximation to compare cellular and nuclear RI by analyzing a set of phase images with a novel, scattering‐based approach. We conclude that the absence of a characteristic dip in the measured phase profiles does not contradict the usage of the simple‐transmission approximation for the determination of the average cellular or nuclear RI. Our response can be regarded as an addition to the response by Steelman, Eldridge and Wax. We kindly ask the reader to attend to their thorough ascertainment prior to reading our response.

Journal

Journal of BiophotonicsWiley

Published: Jan 1, 2018

Keywords: ; ; ;

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off