Open Access
20 December 2024 To label or not: the need for validation in label-free imaging
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Significance

Advances in label-free imaging have impacted many areas of biological and biomedical imaging ranging from cell biology and cancer to pathology and neuroscience. Despite the great progress and advantages of these methods, it is clear that to realize their full potential, validation by extrinsic labels and probes is critically needed.

Aim

This perspective calls for developing and applying innovative labels and probes to validate both existing and emerging label-free imaging methods.

Approach

Major representative types of label-free imaging methods are briefly presented discussing their advantages and differing contrasts. Their biological applications are also reviewed with a focus on how validation of label-free methods with carefully developed labeling approaches will greatly aid in further intrinsic contrast imaging adoption and likely lead to more sophisticated image-based biomarkers and a better understanding of the underlying signals.

Conclusions

Expanded efforts in extrinsic label validation will significantly push forward the utilization and adoption of label-free methods both in basic research and clinical models.

1.

Introduction

It has been 30 years since Martin Chalfie first expressed green fluorescent protein in Escherichia coli and Caenorhabditis elegans.1 This event marked the beginning of a “fluorescence revolution” in biology, where advancements in microscopy and genetics allowed for the mapping of protein localization and direct observation of protein activity in vivo. During this time, microscopists made another observation that was originally deemed an experimental nuisance: “autofluorescence.” We now know that this background “noise” is the result of very specific intrinsic fluorophores and light scatterers, making this signal information rich. This endogenous fluorescence, together with other label-free imaging techniques, has become an exciting new feature in our imaging toolkit. Some of the prominent label-free imaging techniques include the following: (1) “autofluorescence” from tryptophan, an aromatic ring amino acid, used to study protein structure and function; metabolic co-factors nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (phosphate) (NAD(P)H) and flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD), proxies for cellular metabolism;2,3 lipofuscin;4 and elastin;5 (2) “second harmonic generation” (SHG) from non-linear scattering by collagen fibers has been widely utilized to observe the architecture of tissues and organs and has even been used to identify prognostic structural changes in disease;6,7 (3) “third harmonic generation” generated by intracellular lipid bodies helps decipherer their roles in inflammation and cancer;8 (4) “light scattering” within tissues can be quantified through techniques such as optical coherence tomography to reveal the structural components based on the differences in refractive indices, birefringence, and blood flow and can distinguish between live and dead tissues;9 and (5) “vibrational spectroscopies” (such as Raman and infrared) that facilitate label-free imaging of small molecules based on their characteristic vibrational spectra and elucidate important cellular processes including metabolism and lipid/protein content.1012

Utilizing label-free imaging techniques to observe intrinsic signals provides numerous significant advantages, both compared with and in combination with exogenous labels, ranging from applications in fundamental biomedical research to the clinical laboratory. In the biomedical research space, countless research dollars and time (in some cases a year or more) may be dedicated to the integration of exogenous labels into model systems of interest, even after refined probes have been developed (which, in some cases, may take years to develop themselves). In many cases, ideal model systems for a particular research project are abandoned at the start due to the lack of genetic tools to engage in such labeling. Although sophisticated probes are regularly being developed and are an essential part of biomedical research, their requisite irradiance when compared with certain unlabeled approaches (quantitative phase or polarization, for example) phototoxicity of the specimen remains a significant concern. Further, one must be vigilant about the many ways artifacts can be introduced by genetic manipulation, overexpression, and/or chimeric nature that many transgenic approaches may present. Clinical use of imaging approaches with exogenous labels is often a non-starter due to safety concerns and potential side effects. Thus, fewer options exist in this space for thorough evaluation of otherwise promising diagnostic or therapeutic methodologies. In addition, certain intrinsic imaging strategies report quantitative information, such as chemically specific spatiotemporal contrast, that currently cannot be examined adequately by synthetic probes. Notably, vibrational spectroscopy can provide complex spectral data that contain information about molecular functional groups and overall symmetry, which cannot be captured by labels. Although certain unlabeled approaches traditionally suffer from weaker signals than their labeled counterparts, newer approaches hold great promise in improving upon this. For example, quantitative polarization-based imaging can serve as a functional reporter and proxy for critical cellular attributes, such as biomechanical force (contractility), in natural and diseased states.13 Such attributes have vital implications in the context of wound healing, development, and invasive cancers, to name a few. In addition, other methods such as quantitative phase imaging (QPI)14,15 combine the benefits of examining morphology by microscopy with additional contrast by quantifying the changes in the phase shift as light passes through a sample. QPI has been widely used in diverse applications ranging from pathology and cancer16,17 to cell biology18 and neuroscience.19 The effectiveness of all these methods in real-world biomedical research and clinical applications depends on our ability to accurately interpret the data produced, especially in complex biological contexts. This underscores the importance of correlative studies that provide reliable biological ground truth, helping us better understand the complex intrinsic signals from label-free imaging techniques. From this perspective, we aim to highlight a few areas where the development of new sensors and probes could provide further validation of label-free imaging techniques.

2.

Autofluorescence

2.1.

NADH Fluorescence and Metabolism

Imaging endogenous fluorescence of NAD(P)H and FAD has shown enormous promise in providing metabolic readouts in vivo.3,20,21 Taking advantage of the fact that NAD(P)H and FAD are autofluorescent, their oxidized or reduced counterparts [NAD(P)+ or FADH2] are not, allowing for the calculation of optical redox ratios, which represent the state of cellular metabolism at subcellular scales. Although varying definitions of redox ratio have been used, largely based on the pioneering work of Chance et al.,22 the optical redox ratio has been widely defined as the intensity of NADH divided by the intensity of FAD.23 With the development of fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM),24 the utility of NADH endogenous fluorescence has been further extended with FLIM able to measure glycolysis via the discrimination of bound versus free NADH.2527 Whether based on intrinsic fluorescence alone or via FLIM measurements, such capability of detecting spatial and temporal metabolic contrast has contributed to many areas of biology, including stem cell differentiation,28 cancer,3 and its interplay with the immune system,29 including microglia metabolism.30 However, this technique has its limitations, as the NAD(P)H autofluorescence signal is indistinguishable between the relative contributions of NAD(P)H and NADH, both of which are metabolically important, thus obstructing definitive interpretation of these readouts. Traditional methods to determine NADH and NAD(P)H concentrations require the excision and disassociation of tissue, which destroy spatial information and leave cells potentially prone to oxidation. Oxidation is problematic because it modifies the innate molecular states within the cell, distorting the interpretation of the data. Therefore, autofluorescence imaging would greatly benefit from well-designed biosensors that could alleviate these concerns and serve as very useful validation.

Luckily, several biosensors have recently been developed that could address many of these issues. Traditional metabolic sensors based on ribonucleic acid (RNA) and transcription factors can generate readouts to different metabolic processes, oxidative phosphorylation, and lipid biogenesis. However, these genetic readouts rely on mechanisms of transcription and translation and often lag minutes to hours behind the initial metabolic changes. Other techniques based on “protein activity,” such as ones that utilize fluorescence resonance energy transfer31 or circularly permuted fluorescent proteins,32 have readout times closer to milliseconds to seconds, providing more informative temporal data. There are a few recently reported biosensors that are attempting to differentiate NADH and NAD(P)H: sensor of NAD(H) redox (SoNar) biosensors have been designed to detect NADH/NAD+-specific ratios and are based on circularly permuted yellow fluorescent protein.33 Moreover, NADP+ levels have been characterized with anisotropy Apollo-NADP+ sensor, and a new NAD(P)H-estimating ratiometric non-destructive sensing tool has been reported to show NAD(P)H/NADP+ redox ratio through fluorescent readout, which are exciting validation tools to help advance NADH endogenous fluorescence.34 However, limitations still exist because these sensors are sensitive to pH and temperature changes and often contain fluorophores with significant spectral overlap with NAD(P)H emission. One must consider the potential challenges in separating signals from autofluorescence and fluorescent dyes/probes, particularly when their spectral characteristics overlap. To address this issue, a combination of quantitative approaches can be employed, including FLIM and spectral deconvolution techniques. FLIM utilizes the distinct fluorescence decay profiles of different fluorophores and autofluorescent species, providing an additional layer of specificity. Spectral deconvolution can further enhance signal separation by analyzing the contributions of individual components across the emission spectrum. Together, these approaches enable robust discrimination of overlapping signals.

2.2.

Autofluorescence for Cell Type Identification

To fully harness the potential of autofluorescence, particularly in complex biological environments, there is a critical need for highly specific label-based methods. These methods are essential for advancing, defining, and validating label-free approaches by providing a reliable reference for accurate cell identification and metabolic profiling. There is a great promise that NAD(P)H and FAD+ autofluorescence could be used to provide cell-specific metabolic contrast in a variety of different contexts. Changes in35 NADH and FAD+ autofluorescence have been used to monitor stem cell differentiation and macrophage and microglia activation in vivo. In fact, the metabolic characterization of cells, such as microglia and macrophages, in their three-dimensional local cellular environment, is perhaps one of the most exciting applications of endogenous fluorescence imaging. For example, the ability to identify and metabolically profile microglia in the brain during neurodegenerative pathology, such as Alzheimer’s disease, has been an aspiration in the biophotonics field.36 The use of label-free fluorescent microscopy can facilitate a more granular dissection of the function of plaque-adjacent microglia, elucidating their previously unknown metabolic profiles and role in disease progression. In breast cancer, NADH and FAD+ autofluorescence can be used to distinguish macrophages from cancer cells in the breast tumor microenvironment.21 Moreover, the optical redox ratio can reveal the effectiveness of chemotherapeutic treatment37 and add context to the importance of tumor-associated macrophage metabolism. Although these techniques show great promise in providing label-free cellular contrast in vivo for both microglia and macrophages, there is still a significant need for new probes that can be used in concert with these techniques to further enhance the diagnostic value of these observations. For example, current means for labeling cell types require the staining of fixed tissues, which loses dynamic context and destroys some metabolic information. Other alternatives are the genetic expression of fluorescent proteins based on cell type-specific promotors along with the creation of mouse models, which are often cost-prohibitive and can be complicated in model systems with limited genetic manipulability. In addition, dye-labeled antibodies specific to cell surface markers have been used,21 but these have limitations in depth of diffusion in in vivo applications, restricting accurate identification to just the most superficial contexts. Notably, due to their decreased size over traditional monoclonal antibodies, dye-labeled nanobodies specific to cell type receptors could aid in the identification of deeper cells.38 Ultimately, the development of probes that easily diffuse through tissues and only get fluorescently activated when bound to specific cell surface receptors would push this area of exploration further. These probes would provide an invaluable biological ground truth to inform endogenous fluorescence and aid in its ability to answer specific biological questions by identifying specific cell types and their activation states.

2.3.

Label-Free Raman and Infrared Vibrational Spectroscopies

One of the key goals of optical microscopy in biology is to observe how biomolecules behave and interact in real time. Vibrational spectroscopy offers an exciting, label-free way to image the chemical makeup of cells. Although it is widely used in chemistry to identify substances, applying it to live-cell imaging is still a challenge. So far, it is mainly been used to detect broad categories of molecules such as lipids, nucleic acids, proteins, carotenoids, and porphyrin-containing proteins.3941

The difficulty lies in the nature of vibrational spectroscopy, which includes techniques such as Raman and mid-infrared (MIR) spectroscopy.41 Raman spectroscopy is limited by its extremely weak signal in which only 20 photons would be collected after a 10-s exposure. In contrast, fluorescent molecules absorb and emit light much more efficiently 10 trillion times stronger than Raman scattering. Under the same conditions, fluorescence can collect around >150 photons in just 1  μs, easily detecting individual molecules in real time. Such a weak signal limits both imaging speed and sensitivity to detecting changes in molecular constituents. Non-linear optical interactions that stimulate coherent Raman scattering (CRS) have been exploited to boost Raman imaging speed by >106 times—allowing video-rate CRS imaging of cells.42,43 Despite these challenges, Raman microscopy has been shown to provide valuable information for stem cells and embryogenesis.44

Although Raman spectroscopy is an impactful tool for specific applications, and highly specific, it is not yet widespread as a biomedical research tool, given its limited analytical performance in complex biosamples. Raman microscopy is an area where a continued community-driven effort to validate constituent signals amongst complex biological contexts could unlock significant gains in the application of unlabeled technologies.

MIR vibrational spectroscopy exploits dipole-allowed optical transitions, resulting in an optical response only 100 times weaker fluorescence.45,46 However, MIR absorption spectroscopy comes with restraining challenges. First, the wavelength of infrared radiation in the MIR spectral range is >10× longer than visible wavelengths, which leads to poor spatial resolution, and is generally incapable of sub-cellular scale. Second, water is a strong and broad absorber in the MIR spectrum, which interferes with the molecular absorption signatures, hindering the ability for live cell analysis and deep tissue imaging.

The potential power of vibrational spectroscopic imaging motivates the development of new spectroscopic imaging methods to improve the speed and sensitivity of chemical imaging. Recent strategies were adopted to improve imaging speed for Raman spectroscopy using high-speed optical delay lines,47,48 computational imaging,49,50 and widefield imaging.51 Efforts to improve sensitivity in Raman detection have made use of novel detection strategies,5254 rear-resonant enhancement,55,56 and photothermal detection57,58 In addition, developments pushing technology for low-frequency Raman spectroscopy (with vibrational frequencies below 200  cm1) offer the potential for studying mechanical soft materials such as biological tissues in a non-invasive manner.54

Technological developments in infrared photonics have also advanced MIR spectrochemical detection. For example, efforts have focused on MIR signal enhancement with metasurfaces,59 MIR photothermal imaging,60,61 and combined MIR and fluorescent detection62 that allows for rapid imaging in live cells with visible or near-infrared detection—vastly improving spatial resolution. Future work with these new chemical imaging modalities will reveal the extent to which these recent advances expand our routine toolsets used for biological studies.

Vibrational spectroscopy has been applied to numerous biological systems, facilitating spatially resolved molecular fingerprint chemical imaging. However, the complexity of molecular composition in biological systems makes the interpretation of specific biomolecular interactions difficult to discern. This challenge lies in the fact that the molecular building blocks for biological macromolecules use a limited pallet for critical components such as nucleic acids, proteins, and lipids. Thus, it is critically important for the community to establish standards for chemical imaging through Raman or MIR spectroscopic measurements and validate the molecular information retrieved from the spectrochemical image datasets.

Here too is a place where fluorescent labels shine through with powerful capabilities because specificity in the labeling of molecules of interest facilitates detailed and specific studies. The combined use of fluorescent labels with Raman and MIR imaging could help establish the utility of chemical imaging in real-world biomedical applications. In addition, information from fluorescent labels could reveal additional ground truth information that, when coupled with spectroscopic imaging, could help test and validate unique molecular fingerprints in spectral signal analysis. Moreover, the fluorescent images can be used as ground-truth labels in supervised machine learning (ML) models, enabling the retrieval of quantitative and molecular-specific information from vibrational spectroscopic image datasets. Such capabilities will greatly benefit from sensitive spectral measurements capable of capturing accurate molecular information, as well as large datasets for reliable and unbiased training, testing, and validation of the ML models. As these ML models rely on large datasets, improved imaging speed is of great importance for various applications, such as high throughput screening (e.g., drug responses to patient-derived cells), whole-slide tissue imaging, flow cytometry, or studying the chemical processes of rapidly moving inter- and intra-cellular components such as exosomes and organelles.

In applications where fluorescent labels fall short in providing the specific molecular information to cross-correlate with the vibrational spectral data, multimodal imaging approaches can be implemented.6365 For example, in a recent work, second harmonic generation imaging was used in tandem with MIR chemical imaging to study tumor microenvironment in pancreatic tissue samples.63 In this study, the unique specificity of SHG microscopy to fibrillar collagen was leveraged using the SHG images as ground-truth collagen labels in an ML model to identify spectral signatures of fibrous tissue regions. Such multimodal imaging investigations can help elucidate the chemical alterations that lead to the architectural changes in tissues associated with various pathologies. Similar label-free multimodal approaches can be used between the vibrational spectroscopies and multiphoton metabolic imaging techniques to decode the spectral cues associated with the metabolic states of cells.

The inherent differences in spatial resolution between fluorescence-based imaging techniques and vibrational spectroscopies, such as Raman or infrared, present unique challenges. For scenarios requiring higher spatial resolution or validation of subcellular signal sources, super-resolution microscopy or expansion microscopy offers complementary solutions. Expansion microscopy, in particular, enables physical magnification of the sample, facilitating the co-registration of spatially resolved fluorescence and vibrational data.

3.

Concluding Remarks

Label-free imaging techniques hold immense potential in the biological and medical sciences. They enable non-destructive and quantitative analysis of biological systems and may stand to accelerate discovery by relieving investigators of the myriad inefficiencies of creating labeled specimens or teasing apart the artifacts of doing so. Such luxuries do currently come at significant cost. Although these differ depending on the approach, overcoming the current limitations of many share a need for careful discernment, and thus, validation of the rich, but often convoluted, signatures we collect. In the case of autofluorescent readouts of metabolic proxies, for example, having a more granular level understanding of what is being reported by overlapping AF spectra between metabolic constituents with distinct roles, would greatly inform studies spanning many research interests. Spectral signals mapped across complex biospecimens are often congested, and vastly more so should dynamic temporal signatures be required. In addition, the quantitative and qualitative molecular perturbations associated with malignancies and other pathology can be subtle, requiring highly sensitive and high-throughput optical measurements. Significant efforts have been devoted to enhancing the analytical sensitivity, SNR, and signal acquisition speed in optical imaging and spectroscopy measurements. In this perspective, we have highlighted the critical importance of cross-validating label-free imaging data with well-established imaging modalities that offer molecular specificity. Such validation efforts, using deterministic experimental protocols on simple model systems, can help demonstrate the utility of chemical imaging and unleash the full potential of label-free methods as powerful next-generation bioanalytical tools. There is great potential for other approaches that could be used to help validate a particular label-free approach such as other already-validated label-free imaging methods and deep learning, but specific extrinsic labels will always play a clear role in understanding label-free contrast.

Disclosures

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Code and Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this paper, as no new data were created or analyzed.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health [Grant Nos. R01 CA238191 (KWE), U54 CA268069 (KWE), and P41EB031772 (KWE and SAB)]. We also acknowledge the support from the Department of Energy [Grant No. DE-SC0023613 (RAB)] and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (RAB and KWE).

References

1. 

A. Roda, “Discovery and development of the green fluorescent protein,” in GFP: the 2008 Nobel Prize, 1619 –1622 (2010). Google Scholar

2. 

T. S. Blacker and M. R. Duchen, “Investigating mitochondrial redox state using NADH and NADPH autofluorescence,” Free Radic. Biol. Med., 100 53 –65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2016.08.010 FRBMEH 0891-5849 (2016). Google Scholar

3. 

M. C. Skala and N. Ramanujam, “Multiphoton redox ratio imaging for metabolic monitoring in vivo,” Methods Mol. Biol., 594 155 –162 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-411-1_11 (2010). Google Scholar

4. 

G. Di Guardo, “Lipofuscin, lipofuscin-like pigments and autofluorescence,” Eur. J. Histochem., 59 72 –73 https://doi.org/10.4081/ejh.2015.2485 EJHIE2 0391-7258 (2015). Google Scholar

5. 

H. Li et al., “In vivo identification of arteries and veins using two-photon excitation elastin autofluorescence,” J. Anat., 236 171 –179 https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.13080 JOANAY 0021-8782 (2020). Google Scholar

6. 

M. W. Conklin et al., “Aligned collagen is a prognostic signature for survival in human breast carcinoma,” Am. J. Pathol., 178 1221 –1232 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2010.11.076 (2011). Google Scholar

7. 

P. J. Campagnola and L. M. Loew, “Second-harmonic imaging microscopy for visualizing biomolecular arrays in cells, tissues and organisms,” Nat. Biotechnol., 21 1356 –1360 https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt894 NABIF9 1087-0156 (2003). Google Scholar

8. 

E. Gavgiotaki et al., “Third harmonic generation microscopy distinguishes malignant cell grade in human breast tissue biopsies,” Sci. Rep., 10 11055 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67857-y SRCEC3 2045-2322 (2020). Google Scholar

9. 

S. Zheng et al., “Optical coherence tomography for three-dimensional imaging in the biomedical field: a review,” Front. Phys., 9 744346 https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2021.744346 (2021). Google Scholar

10. 

W.-W. Chen et al., “Spectroscopic coherent Raman imaging of Caenorhabditis elegans reveals lipid particle diversity,” Nat. Chem. Biol., 16 1087 –1095 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-020-0565-2 1552-4450 (2020). Google Scholar

11. 

R. C. Prince et al., “Stimulated Raman scattering: from bulk to nano,” Chem. Rev., 117 5070 –5094 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00545 CHREAY 0009-2665 (2017). Google Scholar

12. 

C. Lima, H. Muhamadali and R. Goodacre, “The role of Raman spectroscopy within quantitative metabolomics,” Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem., 14 323 –345 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anchem-091420-092323 (2021). Google Scholar

13. 

W Wang et al., “Quantitative assessment of cell contractility using polarized light microscopy,” J. Biophotonics, 176 139 –148 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201800008 (2013). Google Scholar

14. 

Y. Park, C. Depeursinge and G. Popescu, “Quantitative phase imaging in biomedicine,” Nat. Photonics, 12 578 –589 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-018-0253-x NPAHBY 1749-4885 (2018). Google Scholar

15. 

T. L. Nguyen et al., “Quantitative phase imaging: recent advances and expanding potential in biomedicine,” ACS Nano, 16 11516 –11544 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c11507 ANCAC3 1936-0851 (2022). Google Scholar

16. 

E. R. Polanco et al., “Multiparametric quantitative phase imaging for real-time, single cell, drug screening in breast cancer,” Commun. Biol., 5 794 https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03759-1 (2022). Google Scholar

17. 

Y. Liu and S. Uttam, “Perspective on quantitative phase imaging to improve precision cancer medicine,” J. Biomed. Opt., 29 S22705 https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.29.S2.S22705 JBOPFO 1083-3668 (2024). Google Scholar

18. 

H.-C. Hsieh, P.-T. Lin and K.-B. Sung, “Characterization and identification of cell death dynamics by quantitative phase imaging,” J. Biomed. Opt., 27 046502 https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.27.4.046502 JBOPFO 1083-3668 (2022). Google Scholar

19. 

C. Hu and G. Popescu, “Quantitative phase imaging (QPI) in neuroscience,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron., 25 1 –9 https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTQE.2018.2869613 IJSQEN 1077-260X (2019). Google Scholar

20. 

A. J. Walsh and M. C. Skala, “Optical metabolic imaging quantifies heterogeneous cell populations,” Biomed. Opt. Express, 6 559 https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.6.000559 BOEICL 2156-7085 (2015). Google Scholar

21. 

J. M. Szulczewski et al., “In vivo visualization of stromal macrophages via label-free FLIM-based metabolite imaging,” Sci. Rep., 6 25086 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25086 SRCEC3 2045-2322 (2016). Google Scholar

22. 

B. Chance et al., “Oxidation-reduction ratio studies of mitochondria in freeze-trapped samples. NADH and flavoprotein fluorescence signals,” J. Biol. Chem., 254 4764 –4771 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(17)30079-0 JBCHA3 0021-9258 (1979). Google Scholar

23. 

A. J. Walsh et al., “Quantitative optical imaging of primary tumor organoid metabolism predicts drug response in breast cancer,” Cancer Res., 74 5184 –5194 https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0663 CNREA8 0008-5472 (2014). Google Scholar

24. 

J. R. Lakowicz et al., “Fluorescence lifetime imaging,” Anal. Biochem., 202 316 –330 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(92)90112-K ANBCA2 0003-2697 (1992). Google Scholar

25. 

N. Ma et al., “Measurements of absolute concentrations of NADH in cells using the phasor FLIM method,” Biomed. Opt. Express, 7 2441 –2452 https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.7.002441 BOEICL 2156-7085 (2016). Google Scholar

26. 

J. R. Lakowicz et al., “Fluorescence lifetime imaging of free and protein-bound NADH,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 89 1271 –1275 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.89.4.1271 (1992). Google Scholar

27. 

D. K. Bird et al., “Metabolic mapping of MCF10A human breast cells via multiphoton fluorescence lifetime imaging of the coenzyme NADH,” Cancer Res., 65 8766 –8773 https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-3922 CNREA8 0008-5472 (2005). Google Scholar

28. 

K. P. Quinn et al., “Quantitative metabolic imaging using endogenous fluorescence to detect stem cell differentiation,” Sci. Rep., 3 3432 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03432 SRCEC3 2045-2322 (2013). Google Scholar

29. 

V. Miskolci et al., “In vivo fluorescence lifetime imaging of macrophage intracellular metabolism during wound responses in zebrafish,” eLife, 11 1 –24 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66080 (2022). Google Scholar

30. 

M. A. K. Sagar et al., “Microglia activation visualization via fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy of intrinsically fluorescent metabolic cofactors,” Neurophotonics, 7 035003 https://doi.org/10.1117/1.NPh.7.3.035003 (2020). Google Scholar

31. 

D. J. Marston et al., “Multiplexed GTPase and GEF biosensor imaging enables network connectivity analysis,” Nat. Chem. Biol., 16 826 –833 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-020-0542-9 1552-4450 (2020). Google Scholar

32. 

A. Bianchi-Smiraglia et al., “Regulation of local GTP availability controls RAC1 activity and cell invasion,” Nat. Commun., 12 6091 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26324-6 NCAOBW 2041-1723 (2021). Google Scholar

33. 

Y. Zhao and Y. Yang, “Real-time and high-throughput analysis of mitochondrial metabolic states in living cells using genetically encoded NAD+/NADH sensors,” Free Radic. Biol. Med., 100 43 –52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2016.05.027 FRBMEH 0891-5849 (2016). Google Scholar

34. 

P. E. Molinari et al., “NERNST: a genetically-encoded ratiometric non-destructive sensing tool to estimate NADP(H) redox status in bacterial, plant and animal systems,” Nat. Commun., 14 3277 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38739-4 NCAOBW 2041-1723 (2023). Google Scholar

35. 

V. S. Shah et al., “Autofluorescence imaging permits label free cell type assignment in unmodified airway and reveals the dynamic formation of airway secretory cell associated antigen passages (SAPs),” eLife, 12 1 –20 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84375 (2023). Google Scholar

36. 

C. Gao et al., “Pathogenesis, therapeutic strategies and biomarker development based on “omics” analysis related to microglia in Alzheimer’s disease,” J. Neuroinflammation, 19 215 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12974-022-02580-1 (2022). Google Scholar

37. 

A. T. Shah et al., “In vivo autofluorescence imaging of tumor heterogeneity in response to treatment,” Neoplasia, 17 862 –870 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neo.2015.11.006 (2015). Google Scholar

38. 

Y. Asaadi et al., “A comprehensive comparison between camelid nanobodies and single chain variable fragments,” Biomark. Res., 9 87 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40364-021-00332-6 (2021). Google Scholar

39. 

C. Zhang, D. Zhang and J.-X. Cheng, “Coherent Raman scattering microscopy in biology and medicine,” Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng., 17 415 –445 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071114-040554 ARBEF7 1523-9829 (2015). Google Scholar

40. 

Y. Li et al., “Review of stimulated Raman scattering microscopy techniques and applications in the biosciences,” Adv. Biol., 5 e2000184 https://doi.org/10.1002/adbi.202000184 (2021). Google Scholar

41. 

T. Bocklitz et al., “Invited article: comparison of hyperspectral coherent Raman scattering microscopies for biomedical applications,” APL Photonics, 3 092404 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5030159 (2018). Google Scholar

42. 

H. Rigneault and P. Berto, “Tutorial: coherent Raman light matter interaction processes,” APL Photonics, 3 091101 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5030335 (2018). Google Scholar

43. 

R. A. Bartels, D. Oron and H. Rigneault, “Low frequency coherent Raman spectroscopy,” J. Phys. Photonics, 3 042004 https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7647/ac1cd7 (2021). Google Scholar

44. 

W. R. Adams et al., “Multi-modal nonlinear optical and thermal imaging platform for label-free characterization of biological tissue,” Sci. Rep., 11 8067 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86774-2 SRCEC3 2045-2322 (2021). Google Scholar

45. 

F. Neubrech et al., “Surface-enhanced infrared spectroscopy using resonant nanoantennas,” Chem. Rev., 117 5110 –5145 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00743 CHREAY 0009-2665 (2017). Google Scholar

46. 

Q. Xia et al., “Mid-infrared photothermal microscopy: principle, instrumentation, and applications,” J. Phys. Chem. B, 126 8597 –8613 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.2c05827 JPCBFK 1520-6106 (2022). Google Scholar

47. 

S. Shivkumar et al., “Selective detection in impulsive low-frequency Raman imaging using shaped probe pulses,” Phys. Rev. Appl., 19 54075 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.19.054075 PRAHB2 2331-7019 (2023). Google Scholar

48. 

X. Audier, N. Balla and H. Rigneault, “Pump-probe micro-spectroscopy by means of an ultra-fast acousto-optics delay line,” Opt. Lett., 42 294 –297 https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.42.000294 OPLEDP 0146-9592 (2017). Google Scholar

49. 

C. Scotté et al., “Compressive Raman imaging with spatial frequency modulated illumination,” Opt. Lett., 44 1936 –1939 https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.44.001936 OPLEDP 0146-9592 (2019). Google Scholar

50. 

S. Heuke et al., “Spatial frequency modulated imaging in coherent anti-Stokes Raman microscopy,” Optica, 7 417 –424 https://doi.org/10.1364/OPTICA.386526 (2020). Google Scholar

51. 

E. M. Fantuzzi et al., “Wide-field coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering microscopy using random illuminations,” Nat. Photonics, 17 1097 –1104 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-023-01294-x NPAHBY 1749-4885 (2023). Google Scholar

52. 

D. R. Smith et al., “Phase noise limited frequency shift impulsive Raman spectroscopy,” APL Photonics, 6 026107 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0038624 (2021). Google Scholar

53. 

D. R. Smith et al., “Nearly degenerate two-color impulsive coherent Raman hyperspectral imaging,” Opt. Lett., 47 5841 –5844 https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.467970 OPLEDP 0146-9592 (2022). Google Scholar

54. 

D. R. Smith et al., “Low-frequency coherent Raman imaging robust to optical scattering,” Chem. Biomed. Imaging, 2 584 –591 https://doi.org/10.1021/cbmi.4c00020 (2024). Google Scholar

55. 

Q. Tang et al., “Electronic-resonance coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering spectroscopy and microscopy,” ACS Photonics, 11 3467 –3475 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.4c01187 (2024). Google Scholar

56. 

L. Shi et al., “Electronic resonant stimulated Raman scattering micro-spectroscopy,” J. Phys. Chem. B, 122 9218 –9224 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.8b07037 JPCBFK 1520-6106 (2018). Google Scholar

57. 

P. Vermeulen, L. Cognet and B. Lounis, “Photothermal microscopy: optical detection of small absorbers in scattering environments,” J. Microsc., 254 115 –121 https://doi.org/10.1111/jmi.12130 JMICAR 0022-2720 (2014). Google Scholar

58. 

Y. Zhu et al., “Stimulated Raman photothermal microscopy toward ultrasensitive chemical imaging,” Sci. Adv., 9 eadi2181 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi2181 STAMCV 1468-6996 (2023). Google Scholar

59. 

S. Rosas et al., “Metasurface-enhanced mid-infrared spectrochemical imaging of tissues,” Adv. Mater., 35 e2301208 https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202301208 ADVMEW 0935-9648 (2023). Google Scholar

60. 

D. Zhang et al., “Depth-resolved mid-infrared photothermal imaging of living cells and organisms with submicrometer spatial resolution,” Sci. Adv., 2 e1600521 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600521 STAMCV 1468-6996 (2016). Google Scholar

61. 

G. Ishigane et al., “Label-free mid-infrared photothermal live-cell imaging beyond video rate,” Light Sci. Appl., 12 174 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-023-01214-2 (2023). Google Scholar

62. 

H. Wang et al., “Bond-selective fluorescence imaging with single-molecule sensitivity,” Nat Photonics, 17 846 –855 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-023-01243-8 (2023). Google Scholar

63. 

W. Adi et al., “Machine learning assisted mid-infrared spectrochemical fibrillar collagen imaging in clinical tissues,” (2024). Google Scholar

64. 

J. H. Lee et al., “Simultaneous label-free autofluorescence and multi-harmonic imaging reveals in vivo structural and metabolic changes in murine skin,” Biomed. Opt. Express, 10 5431 –5444 https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.10.005431 BOEICL 2156-7085 (2019). Google Scholar

65. 

Y. Sun et al., “Real-time three-dimensional histology-like imaging by label-free nonlinear optical microscopy,” Quantum Imaging Med. Surg., 10 2177 –2190 https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-20-381 (2020). Google Scholar

Biographies of the authors are not available.

CC BY: © The Authors. Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Distribution or reproduction of this work in whole or in part requires full attribution of the original publication, including its DOI.

Funding Statement

Joseph M. Szulczewski, Filiz Yesilkoy, Tyler Ulland, Randy Bartels, Bryan A. Millis, Stephen A. Boppart, and Kevin W. Eliceiri "To label or not: the need for validation in label-free imaging," Journal of Biomedical Optics 29(S2), S22717 (20 December 2024). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.29.S2.S22717
Received: 4 October 2024; Accepted: 10 December 2024; Published: 20 December 2024
Advertisement
Advertisement
KEYWORDS
Biological imaging

Biomedical optics

Imaging spectroscopy

Raman spectroscopy

Spectroscopy

Vibration

Autofluorescence

Back to Top