Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39237572›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Quantifying DNA damage following light sheet and confocal imaging of the mammalian embryo.

Darren J X Chow, Erik P Schartner, Stella Corsetti, Avinash Upadhya, Josephine Morizet, Frank J Gunn-Moore, Kylie R Dunning, Kishan Dholakia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Quantifying single-cell responses to irradiation in 3D.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  4. Nuclear Dynamics and Its Timing Regulation Revealed by Live-Cell Imaging.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Characterizing trajectories of innate immune cells in larval zebrafish.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Darren J X ChowRobinson Research Institute, School of Biomedicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Erik P SchartnerInstitute for Photonics and Advanced Sensing, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Stella CorsettiSUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife, UK. sc337@st-andrews.ac.uk.
Avinash UpadhyaInstitute for Photonics and Advanced Sensing, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Josephine MorizetSUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife, UK.
Frank J Gunn-MooreSchool of Biology, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife, UK.
Kylie R Dunning *Robinson Research Institute, School of Biomedicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Kishan Dholakia *School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. kd1@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Funding

Australian Research Council FL210100099European Union's Horizon 2020 project "Proscope" 871212Hospital Research Foundation Fellowship Mid-career fellowship C-MCF-58-2019National Health and Medical Research Council APP2003786UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/P030017/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Embryo quality assessment by optical imaging is increasing in popularity. Among available optical techniques, light sheet microscopy has emerged as a superior alternative to confocal microscopy due to its geometry, enabling faster image acquisition with reduced photodamage to the sample. However, previous assessments of photodamage induced by imaging may have failed to measure more subtle impacts. In this study, we employed DNA damage as a sensitive indicator of photodamage. We use light sheet microscopy with excitation at a wavelength of 405 nm for imaging embryo autofluorescence and compare its performance to laser scanning confocal microscopy. At an equivalent signal-to-noise ratio for images acquired with both modalities, light sheet microscopy reduced image acquisition time by ten-fold, and did not induce DNA damage when compared to non-imaged embryos. In contrast, imaging with confocal microscopy led to significantly higher levels of DNA damage within embryos and had a higher photobleaching rate. Light sheet imaging is also capable of inducing DNA damage within the embryo but requires multiple cycles of volumetric imaging. Collectively, this study confirms that light sheet microscopy is faster and safer than confocal microscopy for imaging live embryos, indicating its potential as a label-free diagnostic for embryo quality.

Indexed as

DNA DamageEmbryo, MammalianMicroscopy, ConfocalAnimalsFemaleMiceOptical Imaging

Identifiers

PMID39237572
PMCPMC11377761

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.