OSA's Digital Library

Biomedical Optics Express

Biomedical Optics Express

  • Editor: Joseph A. Izatt
  • Vol. 2, Iss. 9 — Sep. 1, 2011
  • pp: 2590–2599
« Show journal navigation

Holographic UV laser microsurgery

Aroshan K Jayasinghe, Jason Rohner, and M Shane Hutson  »View Author Affiliations


Biomedical Optics Express, Vol. 2, Issue 9, pp. 2590-2599 (2011)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/BOE.2.002590


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1026 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

We use a spatial light modulator (SLM) to diffract a single UV laser pulse to ablate multiple points on a Drosophila embryo. This system dynamically generates a phase hologram for ablating a user-defined pattern fast enough to be used with living, and thus moving, tissue. We demonstrate the ability of this single-pulse multi-point system to perform two experiments that are very difficult for conventional microsurgery—isolating single cells in vivo and measuring fast retractions from large incisions.

© 2011 OSA

1. Introduction

Laser microsurgery is a well-established method for studying the cellular forces that drive morphogenesis [1

1. Y. Toyama, X. G. Peralta, A. R. Wells, D. P. Kiehart, and G. S. Edwards, “Apoptotic force and tissue dynamics during Drosophila embryogenesis,” Science 321(5896), 1683–1686 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5

5. X. G. Peralta, Y. Toyama, M. S. Hutson, R. Montague, S. Venakides, D. P. Kiehart, and G. S. Edwards, “Upregulation of forces and morphogenic asymmetries in dorsal closure during Drosophila development,” Biophys. J. 92(7), 2583–2596 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. In many cases, microsurgery creates extended incisions in a tissue by ablating discrete points one at a time—a serial multi-pulse procedure. Such incisions have proven useful in determining the relative morphogenetic roles of different tissue regions; however, the quantitative interpretation of such experiments is limited. Only the first pulse ablates unaltered tissue; all subsequent pulses ablate tissue that is already retracting or undergoing strain relaxation. This motion makes some potentially useful microsurgeries very challenging—e.g., cutting around a single cell or patch of tissue to mechanically isolate it from a surrounding epithelium—and strongly interferes with the quantitative measurement of retraction velocity after extended incisions [1

1. Y. Toyama, X. G. Peralta, A. R. Wells, D. P. Kiehart, and G. S. Edwards, “Apoptotic force and tissue dynamics during Drosophila embryogenesis,” Science 321(5896), 1683–1686 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Here, we present a method for circumventing these problems by simultaneously ablating multiple points in a living tissue. We do so by dynamically shaping the phase profile of a single laser pulse using a programmable spatial light modulator (SLM).

SLMs are widely used to dynamically control multiple optical traps, a technique known as holographic optical tweezers [6

6. E. R. Dufresne, G. C. Spalding, M. T. Dearing, S. A. Sheets, and D. G. Grier, “Computer-generated holographic optical tweezer arrays,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 72(3), 1810 (2001). [CrossRef]

,7

7. E. R. Dufresne and D. G. Grier, “Optical tweezer arrays and optical substrates created with diffractive optics,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 69(5), 1974 (1998). [CrossRef]

]. The primary difference between an optical trapping setup and a microsurgical system is the use of a continuous-wave visible or near-IR laser in the former, but a pulsed laser in the latter. A wide variety of pulsed lasers have been used for laser microsurgery ranging from mode-locked near-IR systems running at 80 MHz to Q-switched UV systems running at only 10 Hz [8

8. J. Colombelli, E. G. Reynaud, and E. H. K. Stelzer, “Investigating relaxation processes in cells and developing organisms: from cell ablation to cytoskeleton nanosurgery,” Methods Cell Biol. 82, 267–291 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

12

12. A. Vogel, J. Noack, G. Hüttman, and G. Paltauf, “Mechanisms of femtosecond laser nanosurgery of cells and tissues,” Appl. Phys. B 81(8), 1015–1047 (2005). [CrossRef]

]. The choice of laser parameters for a given microsurgical application is driven by the scale of the targeted biological system (i.e. multi-cellular, cellular or sub-cellular), the acceptable level of collateral damage, and the time scales of the tissue dynamics of interest. Nanosecond UV lasers excel at cutting cell edges using just a single pulse in experiments designed to measure the mechanical retraction of surrounding cells on time scales of milliseconds and longer. Such experiments could also be done using amplified femtosecond lasers, but less-expensive nanosecond UV lasers ablate with similarly low thresholds [9

9. M. S. Hutson and X. Ma, “Plasma and cavitation dynamics during pulsed laser microsurgery in vivo,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(15), 158104 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

,12

12. A. Vogel, J. Noack, G. Hüttman, and G. Paltauf, “Mechanisms of femtosecond laser nanosurgery of cells and tissues,” Appl. Phys. B 81(8), 1015–1047 (2005). [CrossRef]

]. They have thus become the instrument of choice for microsurgical investigations of cellular mechanics. Here we show how nanosecond UV lasers can be coupled with an SLM to provide new and innovative means to probe cellular mechanics. Although pulsed lasers have been used in SLM-based ablation systems to study multi-point cavitation in liquids [13

13. K. Y. Lim, P. A. Quinto-Su, E. Klaseboer, B. C. Khoo, V. Venugopalan, and C.-D. Ohl, “Nonspherical laser-induced cavitation bubbles,” Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 81(1), 016308 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15

15. A. Mao, “Holographic modulation of a pulsed UV laser microbeam for biophysical investigations of tissue dynamics,” Senior Thesis (Free Electron Laser Laboratory, Duke University, 2004).

], pulsed UV exposure places unique demands on SLM damage thresholds for holographic microsurgery. In addition, the simultaneous ablation of multiple points may lead to unintended interactions between multiple cavitation bubbles in the tissue—confounding interpretations of the post-ablation tissue movements. We investigate both potential limitations below and find that holographic microsurgery must consider both, but is not strongly limited by either.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Optical path

Our experimental layout contains three independently controlled optical paths for ablation, confocal fluorescence imaging and high-speed bright-field imaging (Fig. 1
Fig. 1 Optical layout with paths for ablation, high-speed bright-field imaging and confocal fluorescence imaging shown in solid blue, dashed red and thick green lines, respectively.
).

The ablation path transports light from the third harmonic of a Q-switched Nd:YAG laser (Minilite II, 4-ns pulse-width, λ = 355 nm, Continuum, Santa Clara, CA) to ablate tissue with either a steerable single-point [3

3. X. Ma, H. E. Lynch, P. C. Scully, and M. S. Hutson, “Probing embryonic tissue mechanics with laser hole drilling,” Phys. Biol. 6(3), 036004 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

,16

16. E. Fällman and O. Axner, “Design for fully steerable dual-trap optical tweezers,” Appl. Opt. 36(10), 2107–2113 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

,17

17. D. P. Kiehart, Y. Tokutake, M. S. Chang, M. S. Hutson, J. Wiemann, X. G. Peralta, Y. Toyama, A. R. Wells, A. Rodriguez, and G. S. Edwards, “Ultraviolet laser microbeam for dissection of Drosophila embryos,” in Cell Biology: A Laboratory Handbook, 3rd ed., J. E. Celis, ed. (Elsevier Academic, 2006), pp. 87–103.

] or a single-pulse, multi-point configuration using a programmable phase-only SLM (PPM X8267, Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., Japan) [18

18. Y. Igasaki, F. Li, N. Yoshida, H. Toyoda, T. Inoue, N. Mukohzaka, Y. Kobayashi, and T. Hara, “High efficiency electrically-addressable phase-only spatial light modulator,” Opt. Rev. 6(4), 339–344 (1999). [CrossRef]

]. For single-point ablations, the SLM can be used as a mirror (76% reflectivity at 355 nm); however, using an overabundance of caution, we avoid such use of the SLM and instead place a mirror just in front of it to avoid unnecessary UV exposure. This replacement can be made with little loss of efficiency [19

19. E. Martín-Badosa, M. Montes-Usategui, A. Carnicer, J. Andilla, E. Pleguezuelos, and I. Juvells, “Design strategies for optimizing holographic optical tweezers set-ups,” J. Opt. A, Pure Appl. Opt. 9(8), S267–S277 (2007). [CrossRef]

,20

20. G. C. Spalding, J. Courtial, and R. Di Leonardo, “Holographic optical tweezers,” in Structured Light and Its Applications an Introduction to Phase-Structured Beams and Nanoscale Optical Forces, D. Andrews, ed. (Academic Press, 2008), pp. 139–157.

]. Lens pair L1-L2 expands the ablating beam to fully cover the SLM’s 20 × 20-mm active area. Lens pair L3-L4 then projects the phase-modified beam onto the back aperture of a microscope objective (40×, 1.3 NA). A mask placed at the conjugate focus after L3 removes unwanted diffractive orders. To summarize energy losses in the optical path, 76% of the energy incident on the SLM is reflected, less than 40% of which passes the mask (the first diffractive order contains less than 20% of the light, but the mask also passes higher positive diffractive orders), and only 40% of light passing the mask is transmitted through the optics and objective to the sample. Thus, the first-order pattern in the objective’s focal plane contains less than 6% of the light incident on the SLM. The higher diffractive orders are individually weaker and below the threshold for ablation.

Since exposure to a pulsed UV laser could damage the SLM, we evaluated damage thresholds by directing a 3-mm-diameter beam through a non-pixelated 25-mm-diameter SLM test cell—essentially a large ‘single-pixel’ device (Boulder Nonlinear Systems Inc., Lafayette, CO)—and evaluated damage as a loss of voltage-dependent birefringence. At a pulse repetition rate of 10 Hz, damage occurred for average intensity greater than 0.14 W/cm2, which corresponds to peak intensity greater than 3.5 x 106 W/cm2. To maintain a large safety margin, we only exposed the SLM to peak intensity <1.9 x 105 W/cm2. With the current optical configuration, this corresponds to pulse energy <3 mJ. The average intensity threshold is of lesser concern because the SLM is exposed to less than ten ablation pulses and a few dozen lower energy alignment pulses in a typical five-hour experimental session. Within these safety margins, our microsurgery system is still capable of simultaneous ablation at over thirty points.

The fluorescence imaging path is used to track cell and tissue movements and is needed for precise targeting of the ablating laser to specific cells or tissue regions. This path is internal to an inverted laser-scanning confocal microscope (LSM 410/Axiovert 135TV, Carl Zeiss, Thornwood, NY). The high-speed bright-field imaging path is used to monitor the dynamics of ablation-induced cavitation bubbles (typically in a liquid sample instead of the highly-scattering tissues). The illumination source is a pulsed diode laser (Cube, λ = 660 nm, Coherent, Santa Clara, CA) and images are recorded by a high sensitivity CCD camera (CoolSNAP EZ, Photometrics, Tucson, AZ). A filter in front of the camera cuts out all light except for a narrow band around 660 nm. The strobe length of the pulsed diode laser (≥ 10 ns) and the delay between the ablation pulse and the laser strobe are both set using a digital delay generator (SRS DG645, Stanford Research Systems, Sunny Vale, CA). The imaging paths and ablating beam are co-aligned through dichroics to allow concurrent ablation and imaging.

2.2. Generating the phase hologram

After convergence, the calculated phase hologram is written to the SLM as an 8-bit, 768 × 768-pixel image. The software for phase calculations and SLM control was developed and implemented using LabVIEW (National Instruments, Austin, TX) and Visual C++ (Microsoft, Redmond, WA).

The entire process—obtaining a confocal image of the sample, designing an ablation pattern, calculating the corresponding phase hologram, writing this pattern to the SLM, and finally performing the ablation—takes about two minutes. The actual time depends strongly on the number of points in the discretized target pattern. Using a 40× objective, the target pattern is limited to a 160 × 64-µm area by the magnification of the optical path and the distance between pixel centers in the SLM. This is sufficient for a wide range of incisions.

2.3. Sample preparation

All microsurgeries were performed on a transgenic strain of Drosophila, ubi-DE-Cad-GFP (Drosophila Genetic Resource Center, Kyoto, Japan), that ubiquitously expresses a GFP-cadherin fusion protein to label epithelial cell borders [23

23. H. Oda and S. Tsukita, “Real-time imaging of cell-cell adherens junctions reveals that Drosophila mesoderm invagination begins with two phases of apical constriction of cells,” J. Cell Sci. 114(Pt 3), 493–501 (2001). [PubMed]

]. Fly embryos were incubated until mid-dorsal-closure stage, then prepared and mounted as described in [3

3. X. Ma, H. E. Lynch, P. C. Scully, and M. S. Hutson, “Probing embryonic tissue mechanics with laser hole drilling,” Phys. Biol. 6(3), 036004 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Embryonic tissues were imaged and ablated close to the cells’ apical surface. The ablations are carried out sufficiently above ablation threshold (2-5×) to ensure clean and complete incisions from a single pulse, despite small variations in sample preparation and tissue depth, as well as fluctuations in the ablating laser [3

3. X. Ma, H. E. Lynch, P. C. Scully, and M. S. Hutson, “Probing embryonic tissue mechanics with laser hole drilling,” Phys. Biol. 6(3), 036004 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

2.4. Cavitation bubbles

We can use high-speed images of cavitation bubbles to ensure that all the targeted points are above ablation threshold and there are no unintended ablation points introduced by the dynamically generated hologram. To image cavitation bubbles, the ablation laser was focused ~15 µm into a cuvette filled with an ethanol solution of laser dye (LD-390, 0.56 g/L, Exciton, Dayton OH). We measured the ablation threshold of this solution (264 nJ) to be similar to that of embryonic tissue (215 nJ), and significantly less (approximately 1%) than that of deionized water (29.1 µJ). Nonetheless, for a given above-threshold pulse energy, the bubble lifetimes are similar in all three samples (Fig. 2
Fig. 2 Lifetime of laser-induced cavitation bubbles as a function of energy incident on the sample: red diamonds, solution of LD-390 in ethanol; gray squares, fruit fly embryos; blue circles, deionized water. Although the ablation thresholds differ by a factor of nearly 100, the bubble lifetime for a given pulse energy is consistent across all these samples.
). The advantage of having a low threshold is twofold. Less energy is required when recreating equivalent patterns of bubbles, and any effects due a lack of uniformity in the output pattern will be easily seen.

3. Results and discussion

Our target epithelium is the amnioserosa at Bowne’s stage 14 [25

25. J. Campos-Ortega, The Embryonic Development of Drosophila melanogaster, 2nd ed. (Springer, 1997).

] of fruit fly embryogenesis. Amnioserosa cells at this stage are approximately 10-20 µm in diameter and 3 µm thick with five to eight neighboring cells. Ablating a hole clean through one of the visible cell-cell interfaces releases the tensile stress both along that edge and across the apical surfaces of the adjoining cells [26

26. M. S. Hutson, J. Veldhuis, X. Ma, H. E. Lynch, P. G. Cranston, and G. W. Brodland, “Combining laser microsurgery and finite element modeling to assess cell-level epithelial mechanics,” Biophys. J. 97(12), 3075–3085 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Thus, five to eight cell edges need to be cut to isolate a single cell from the rest of the tissue.

We then performed the same experiment using the single-pulse multi-point system (Fig. 4). To cut around a cell, we targeted the midpoints of all adjacent cell edges. Since the targeted cell edges may move during the iterative phase hologram calculation (at this stage of development, amnioserosa cells pulse with a period of about four minutes [29

29. J. Solon, A. Kaya-Copur, J. Colombelli, and D. Brunner, “Pulsed forces timed by a ratchet-like mechanism drive directed tissue movement during dorsal closure,” Cell 137(7), 1331–1342 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]), we targeted two closely spaced points per edge to maximize the probability of a clean and complete cut.

To further test the capabilities of the SLM-based system, we made linear incisions in the lateral epidermis of stage 14 fly embryos (Fig. 5
Fig. 5 Multi-point ablation for linear incisions in the lateral epidermis (Media 3). The energy of the ablation pulse was 146 µJ at the surface of the SLM—approximately 8.7 µJ at the sample, which is approximately 3× the threshold for ten single-point ablations. (A) Confocal image of the tissue before ablation. Red lines demarcate the targeted incisions. (B-F) Confocal images after ablation. (G-I) Lines of cavitation bubbles generated by same pattern in laser dye. Images was taken immediately post ablation, at maximum extent and at collapse with a 10 ns exposure. The common scale bar is 20-µm long.
). Each targeted incision was discretized with points spaced approximately 4 µm apart. This spacing was chosen to make a quasi-continuous cut in the epidermis (the cells of which are 3-4 µm across) while minimizing the total laser pulse energy. In Fig. 5, the shorter line is created by four ablation points, the longer by six.

In the confocal image immediately after ablation, one can see two lines of holes in the overlying vitelline membrane and some deformation of the epidermis (Fig. 5(B)). At later times, large holes in the epidermis open perpendicular to each linear incision (Figs. 5(C-F)). Using the same phase hologram and the same pulse energy on multiple embryos, we measured an average bubble lifetime of 6.8 µs. As before, this corresponds to a surprisingly large value for the predicted maximum bubble radius (37 µm) that is consistent with the maximum extent of matched-lifetime bubbles in laser-dye solution (~74 µm, Fig. 5(H)). Nonetheless, since the ablation process is complete within a few tens of microseconds, it is possible to measure a true initial retraction velocity and thus make solid inferences regarding variations in stress between adjacent segments of the epidermis. In a conventional laser microsurgery system, one must either compare incisions created in different embryos—thus conflating inter- and intra-embryo variations in tension—or compare sequential incisions in the same embryo—with the results dependent on the order of the incisions. The single-pulse multi-point ablation system eliminates both problems.

One new question that does arise with the multi-point ablation system is the possibility of hydrodynamic interactions between multiple cavitation bubbles [13

13. K. Y. Lim, P. A. Quinto-Su, E. Klaseboer, B. C. Khoo, V. Venugopalan, and C.-D. Ohl, “Nonspherical laser-induced cavitation bubbles,” Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 81(1), 016308 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Jets formed between closely-spaced bubbles could ensure complete ablation of the targeted edges in Fig. 4 and enhance the continuity of the linear incisions in Fig. 5 [33

33. I. Toytman, A. Silbergleit, D. Simanovski, and D. Palanker, “Multifocal laser surgery: cutting enhancement by hydrodynamic interactions between cavitation bubbles,” Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 82(4), 046313 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

35

35. P. A. Quinto-Su and C.-D. Ohl, “Interaction between two laser-induced cavitation bubbles in a quasi-two-dimensional geometry,” J. Fluid Mech. 633, 425 (2009). [CrossRef]

]; however, the bubbles in these patterns expand to such an extent that small scale jets are obscured by the large scale asymmetric collapse of the bubble agglomeration (Fig. 4(I) and Fig. 5(I)). Nevertheless, one should measure the hydrodynamic interactions for each class of ablation pattern and take those interactions into account when interpreting the mechanical implications of microsurgery in tissues.

4. Conclusions

Using a programmable, phase-only SLM, we can successfully ablate multiple points over a wide area (approximately 160 × 64 µm) with a single pulse from a nanosecond UV laser. We can dynamically generate the necessary phase hologram quickly enough to use this technique for microsurgical applications in living embryos. Care must be taken to measure and limit hydrodynamic interactions between simultaneous cavitation bubbles, but with proper care, this technique opens up several interesting research avenues including isolating single cells in vivo and measuring fast retraction from arbitrarily shaped wounds.

Acknowledgments

This work supported by the National Science Foundation (IOB-0545679) and the Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0021/2007C).

References and links

1.

Y. Toyama, X. G. Peralta, A. R. Wells, D. P. Kiehart, and G. S. Edwards, “Apoptotic force and tissue dynamics during Drosophila embryogenesis,” Science 321(5896), 1683–1686 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2.

M. S. Hutson, Y. Tokutake, M. S. Chang, J. W. Bloor, S. Venakides, D. P. Kiehart, and G. S. Edwards, “Forces for morphogenesis investigated with laser microsurgery and quantitative modeling,” Science 300(5616), 145–149 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3.

X. Ma, H. E. Lynch, P. C. Scully, and M. S. Hutson, “Probing embryonic tissue mechanics with laser hole drilling,” Phys. Biol. 6(3), 036004 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4.

D. P. Kiehart, C. G. Galbraith, K. A. Edwards, W. L. Rickoll, and R. A. Montague, “Multiple forces contribute to cell sheet morphogenesis for dorsal closure in Drosophila,” J. Cell Biol. 149(2), 471–490 (2000). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5.

X. G. Peralta, Y. Toyama, M. S. Hutson, R. Montague, S. Venakides, D. P. Kiehart, and G. S. Edwards, “Upregulation of forces and morphogenic asymmetries in dorsal closure during Drosophila development,” Biophys. J. 92(7), 2583–2596 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6.

E. R. Dufresne, G. C. Spalding, M. T. Dearing, S. A. Sheets, and D. G. Grier, “Computer-generated holographic optical tweezer arrays,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 72(3), 1810 (2001). [CrossRef]

7.

E. R. Dufresne and D. G. Grier, “Optical tweezer arrays and optical substrates created with diffractive optics,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 69(5), 1974 (1998). [CrossRef]

8.

J. Colombelli, E. G. Reynaud, and E. H. K. Stelzer, “Investigating relaxation processes in cells and developing organisms: from cell ablation to cytoskeleton nanosurgery,” Methods Cell Biol. 82, 267–291 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9.

M. S. Hutson and X. Ma, “Plasma and cavitation dynamics during pulsed laser microsurgery in vivo,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(15), 158104 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10.

A. Vogel and V. Venugopalan, “Mechanisms of pulsed laser ablation of biological tissues,” Chem. Rev. 103(2), 577–644 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11.

V. Venugopalan, A. Guerra III, K. Nahen, and A. Vogel, “Role of laser-induced plasma formation in pulsed cellular microsurgery and micromanipulation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(7), 078103 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

12.

A. Vogel, J. Noack, G. Hüttman, and G. Paltauf, “Mechanisms of femtosecond laser nanosurgery of cells and tissues,” Appl. Phys. B 81(8), 1015–1047 (2005). [CrossRef]

13.

K. Y. Lim, P. A. Quinto-Su, E. Klaseboer, B. C. Khoo, V. Venugopalan, and C.-D. Ohl, “Nonspherical laser-induced cavitation bubbles,” Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 81(1), 016308 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14.

P. A. Quinto-Su, V. Venugopalan, and C.-D. Ohl, “Generation of laser-induced cavitation bubbles with a digital hologram,” Opt. Express 16(23), 18964–18969 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15.

A. Mao, “Holographic modulation of a pulsed UV laser microbeam for biophysical investigations of tissue dynamics,” Senior Thesis (Free Electron Laser Laboratory, Duke University, 2004).

16.

E. Fällman and O. Axner, “Design for fully steerable dual-trap optical tweezers,” Appl. Opt. 36(10), 2107–2113 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

17.

D. P. Kiehart, Y. Tokutake, M. S. Chang, M. S. Hutson, J. Wiemann, X. G. Peralta, Y. Toyama, A. R. Wells, A. Rodriguez, and G. S. Edwards, “Ultraviolet laser microbeam for dissection of Drosophila embryos,” in Cell Biology: A Laboratory Handbook, 3rd ed., J. E. Celis, ed. (Elsevier Academic, 2006), pp. 87–103.

18.

Y. Igasaki, F. Li, N. Yoshida, H. Toyoda, T. Inoue, N. Mukohzaka, Y. Kobayashi, and T. Hara, “High efficiency electrically-addressable phase-only spatial light modulator,” Opt. Rev. 6(4), 339–344 (1999). [CrossRef]

19.

E. Martín-Badosa, M. Montes-Usategui, A. Carnicer, J. Andilla, E. Pleguezuelos, and I. Juvells, “Design strategies for optimizing holographic optical tweezers set-ups,” J. Opt. A, Pure Appl. Opt. 9(8), S267–S277 (2007). [CrossRef]

20.

G. C. Spalding, J. Courtial, and R. Di Leonardo, “Holographic optical tweezers,” in Structured Light and Its Applications an Introduction to Phase-Structured Beams and Nanoscale Optical Forces, D. Andrews, ed. (Academic Press, 2008), pp. 139–157.

21.

R. Di Leonardo, F. Ianni, and G. Ruocco, “Computer generation of optimal holograms for optical trap arrays,” Opt. Express 15(4), 1913–1922 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

22.

M. Montes-Usategui, E. Pleguezuelos, J. Andilla, and E. Martín-Badosa, “Fast generation of holographic optical tweezers by random mask encoding of Fourier components,” Opt. Express 14(6), 2101–2107 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

23.

H. Oda and S. Tsukita, “Real-time imaging of cell-cell adherens junctions reveals that Drosophila mesoderm invagination begins with two phases of apical constriction of cells,” J. Cell Sci. 114(Pt 3), 493–501 (2001). [PubMed]

24.

LordRayleigh, “On the pressure developed in a liquid during the collapse of a spherical cavity,” Philos. Mag. 1917, 34 (1917).

25.

J. Campos-Ortega, The Embryonic Development of Drosophila melanogaster, 2nd ed. (Springer, 1997).

26.

M. S. Hutson, J. Veldhuis, X. Ma, H. E. Lynch, P. G. Cranston, and G. W. Brodland, “Combining laser microsurgery and finite element modeling to assess cell-level epithelial mechanics,” Biophys. J. 97(12), 3075–3085 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

27.

J. Colombelli, E. G. Reynaud, J. Rietdorf, R. Pepperkok, and E. H. K. Stelzer, “In vivo selective cytoskeleton dynamics quantification in interphase cells induced by pulsed ultraviolet laser nanosurgery,” Traffic 6(12), 1093–1102 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

28.

J. Colombelli, S. W. Grill, and E. H. K. Stelzer, “Ultraviolet diffraction limited nanosurgery of live biological tissues,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 75(2), 472 (2004). [CrossRef]

29.

J. Solon, A. Kaya-Copur, J. Colombelli, and D. Brunner, “Pulsed forces timed by a ratchet-like mechanism drive directed tissue movement during dorsal closure,” Cell 137(7), 1331–1342 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

30.

M. Rauzi, P. Verant, T. Lecuit, and P.-F. Lenne, “Nature and anisotropy of cortical forces orienting Drosophila tissue morphogenesis,” Nat. Cell Biol. 10(12), 1401–1410 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

31.

R. Farhadifar, J.-C. Röper, B. Aigouy, S. Eaton, and F. Jülicher, “The influence of cell mechanics, cell-cell interactions, and proliferation on epithelial packing,” Curr. Biol. 17(24), 2095–2104 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

32.

S. Kumar, I. Z. Maxwell, A. Heisterkamp, T. R. Polte, T. P. Lele, M. Salanga, E. Mazur, and D. E. Ingber, “Viscoelastic retraction of single living stress fibers and its impact on cell shape, cytoskeletal organization, and extracellular matrix mechanics,” Biophys. J. 90(10), 3762–3773 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

33.

I. Toytman, A. Silbergleit, D. Simanovski, and D. Palanker, “Multifocal laser surgery: cutting enhancement by hydrodynamic interactions between cavitation bubbles,” Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 82(4), 046313 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

34.

Y. Tomita, A. Shima, and K. Sato, “Dynamic behavior of two-laser-induced bubbles in water,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 57(3), 234 (1990). [CrossRef]

35.

P. A. Quinto-Su and C.-D. Ohl, “Interaction between two laser-induced cavitation bubbles in a quasi-two-dimensional geometry,” J. Fluid Mech. 633, 425 (2009). [CrossRef]

OCIS Codes
(170.1020) Medical optics and biotechnology : Ablation of tissue
(090.1995) Holography : Digital holography
(070.6120) Fourier optics and signal processing : Spatial light modulators

ToC Category:
Optical Therapies and Photomodificaton

History
Original Manuscript: July 1, 2011
Revised Manuscript: August 9, 2011
Manuscript Accepted: August 9, 2011
Published: August 15, 2011

Citation
Aroshan K Jayasinghe, Jason Rohner, and M Shane Hutson, "Holographic UV laser microsurgery," Biomed. Opt. Express 2, 2590-2599 (2011)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/boe/abstract.cfm?URI=boe-2-9-2590


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. Y. Toyama, X. G. Peralta, A. R. Wells, D. P. Kiehart, and G. S. Edwards, “Apoptotic force and tissue dynamics during Drosophila embryogenesis,” Science 321(5896), 1683–1686 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. M. S. Hutson, Y. Tokutake, M. S. Chang, J. W. Bloor, S. Venakides, D. P. Kiehart, and G. S. Edwards, “Forces for morphogenesis investigated with laser microsurgery and quantitative modeling,” Science 300(5616), 145–149 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. X. Ma, H. E. Lynch, P. C. Scully, and M. S. Hutson, “Probing embryonic tissue mechanics with laser hole drilling,” Phys. Biol. 6(3), 036004 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. D. P. Kiehart, C. G. Galbraith, K. A. Edwards, W. L. Rickoll, and R. A. Montague, “Multiple forces contribute to cell sheet morphogenesis for dorsal closure in Drosophila,” J. Cell Biol. 149(2), 471–490 (2000). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. X. G. Peralta, Y. Toyama, M. S. Hutson, R. Montague, S. Venakides, D. P. Kiehart, and G. S. Edwards, “Upregulation of forces and morphogenic asymmetries in dorsal closure during Drosophila development,” Biophys. J. 92(7), 2583–2596 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. E. R. Dufresne, G. C. Spalding, M. T. Dearing, S. A. Sheets, and D. G. Grier, “Computer-generated holographic optical tweezer arrays,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 72(3), 1810 (2001). [CrossRef]
  7. E. R. Dufresne and D. G. Grier, “Optical tweezer arrays and optical substrates created with diffractive optics,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 69(5), 1974 (1998). [CrossRef]
  8. J. Colombelli, E. G. Reynaud, and E. H. K. Stelzer, “Investigating relaxation processes in cells and developing organisms: from cell ablation to cytoskeleton nanosurgery,” Methods Cell Biol. 82, 267–291 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. M. S. Hutson and X. Ma, “Plasma and cavitation dynamics during pulsed laser microsurgery in vivo,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(15), 158104 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. A. Vogel and V. Venugopalan, “Mechanisms of pulsed laser ablation of biological tissues,” Chem. Rev. 103(2), 577–644 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. V. Venugopalan, A. Guerra, K. Nahen, and A. Vogel, “Role of laser-induced plasma formation in pulsed cellular microsurgery and micromanipulation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(7), 078103 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. A. Vogel, J. Noack, G. Hüttman, and G. Paltauf, “Mechanisms of femtosecond laser nanosurgery of cells and tissues,” Appl. Phys. B 81(8), 1015–1047 (2005). [CrossRef]
  13. K. Y. Lim, P. A. Quinto-Su, E. Klaseboer, B. C. Khoo, V. Venugopalan, and C.-D. Ohl, “Nonspherical laser-induced cavitation bubbles,” Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 81(1), 016308 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. P. A. Quinto-Su, V. Venugopalan, and C.-D. Ohl, “Generation of laser-induced cavitation bubbles with a digital hologram,” Opt. Express 16(23), 18964–18969 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. A. Mao, “Holographic modulation of a pulsed UV laser microbeam for biophysical investigations of tissue dynamics,” Senior Thesis (Free Electron Laser Laboratory, Duke University, 2004).
  16. E. Fällman and O. Axner, “Design for fully steerable dual-trap optical tweezers,” Appl. Opt. 36(10), 2107–2113 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. D. P. Kiehart, Y. Tokutake, M. S. Chang, M. S. Hutson, J. Wiemann, X. G. Peralta, Y. Toyama, A. R. Wells, A. Rodriguez, and G. S. Edwards, “Ultraviolet laser microbeam for dissection of Drosophila embryos,” in Cell Biology: A Laboratory Handbook, 3rd ed., J. E. Celis, ed. (Elsevier Academic, 2006), pp. 87–103.
  18. Y. Igasaki, F. Li, N. Yoshida, H. Toyoda, T. Inoue, N. Mukohzaka, Y. Kobayashi, and T. Hara, “High efficiency electrically-addressable phase-only spatial light modulator,” Opt. Rev. 6(4), 339–344 (1999). [CrossRef]
  19. E. Martín-Badosa, M. Montes-Usategui, A. Carnicer, J. Andilla, E. Pleguezuelos, and I. Juvells, “Design strategies for optimizing holographic optical tweezers set-ups,” J. Opt. A, Pure Appl. Opt. 9(8), S267–S277 (2007). [CrossRef]
  20. G. C. Spalding, J. Courtial, and R. Di Leonardo, “Holographic optical tweezers,” in Structured Light and Its Applications an Introduction to Phase-Structured Beams and Nanoscale Optical Forces, D. Andrews, ed. (Academic Press, 2008), pp. 139–157.
  21. R. Di Leonardo, F. Ianni, and G. Ruocco, “Computer generation of optimal holograms for optical trap arrays,” Opt. Express 15(4), 1913–1922 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. M. Montes-Usategui, E. Pleguezuelos, J. Andilla, and E. Martín-Badosa, “Fast generation of holographic optical tweezers by random mask encoding of Fourier components,” Opt. Express 14(6), 2101–2107 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. H. Oda and S. Tsukita, “Real-time imaging of cell-cell adherens junctions reveals that Drosophila mesoderm invagination begins with two phases of apical constriction of cells,” J. Cell Sci. 114(Pt 3), 493–501 (2001). [PubMed]
  24. LordRayleigh, “On the pressure developed in a liquid during the collapse of a spherical cavity,” Philos. Mag. 1917, 34 (1917).
  25. J. Campos-Ortega, The Embryonic Development of Drosophila melanogaster, 2nd ed. (Springer, 1997).
  26. M. S. Hutson, J. Veldhuis, X. Ma, H. E. Lynch, P. G. Cranston, and G. W. Brodland, “Combining laser microsurgery and finite element modeling to assess cell-level epithelial mechanics,” Biophys. J. 97(12), 3075–3085 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. J. Colombelli, E. G. Reynaud, J. Rietdorf, R. Pepperkok, and E. H. K. Stelzer, “In vivo selective cytoskeleton dynamics quantification in interphase cells induced by pulsed ultraviolet laser nanosurgery,” Traffic 6(12), 1093–1102 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. J. Colombelli, S. W. Grill, and E. H. K. Stelzer, “Ultraviolet diffraction limited nanosurgery of live biological tissues,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 75(2), 472 (2004). [CrossRef]
  29. J. Solon, A. Kaya-Copur, J. Colombelli, and D. Brunner, “Pulsed forces timed by a ratchet-like mechanism drive directed tissue movement during dorsal closure,” Cell 137(7), 1331–1342 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. M. Rauzi, P. Verant, T. Lecuit, and P.-F. Lenne, “Nature and anisotropy of cortical forces orienting Drosophila tissue morphogenesis,” Nat. Cell Biol. 10(12), 1401–1410 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. R. Farhadifar, J.-C. Röper, B. Aigouy, S. Eaton, and F. Jülicher, “The influence of cell mechanics, cell-cell interactions, and proliferation on epithelial packing,” Curr. Biol. 17(24), 2095–2104 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. S. Kumar, I. Z. Maxwell, A. Heisterkamp, T. R. Polte, T. P. Lele, M. Salanga, E. Mazur, and D. E. Ingber, “Viscoelastic retraction of single living stress fibers and its impact on cell shape, cytoskeletal organization, and extracellular matrix mechanics,” Biophys. J. 90(10), 3762–3773 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. I. Toytman, A. Silbergleit, D. Simanovski, and D. Palanker, “Multifocal laser surgery: cutting enhancement by hydrodynamic interactions between cavitation bubbles,” Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 82(4), 046313 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Y. Tomita, A. Shima, and K. Sato, “Dynamic behavior of two-laser-induced bubbles in water,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 57(3), 234 (1990). [CrossRef]
  35. P. A. Quinto-Su and C.-D. Ohl, “Interaction between two laser-induced cavitation bubbles in a quasi-two-dimensional geometry,” J. Fluid Mech. 633, 425 (2009). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 
Fig. 4 Fig. 5
 

Supplementary Material


» Media 1: AVI (1294 KB)     
» Media 2: AVI (1424 KB)     
» Media 3: AVI (881 KB)     

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited