Quiescent cancer cells resist T cell attack by forming an immunosuppressive niche

A modern day light microscope has evolved from a tool devoted to making primarily empirical observations to what is now a sophisticated, quantitative device that is an integral part of both physical and life science research. Nowadays, microscopes are found in nearly every experimental laboratory. However, despite their prevalent use in capturing and quantifying scientific phenomena, neither a thorough understanding of the principles underlying quantitative imaging techniques nor appropriate knowledge of how to calibrate, operate and maintain microscopes can be taken for granted. This is clearly demonstrated by the well-documented and widespread difficulties that are routinely encountered in evaluating acquired data and reproducing scientific experiments. Indeed, studies have shown that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to repeat another scientist's experiments, while more than half have even failed to reproduce their own experiments1 . One factor behind the reproducibility crisis of experiments published in scientific journals is the frequent underreporting of imaging methods caused by a lack of awareness and/or a lack of knowledge of the applied technique2,3 . Whereas quality control procedures for some methods used in biomedical research, such as genomics (e.g., DNA sequencing, RNA-seq) or cytometry, have been introduced (e.g. ENCODE4 ), this issue has not been tackled for optical microscopy instrumentation and images. Although many calibration standards and protocols have been published, there is a lack of awareness and agreement on common standards and guidelines for quality assessment and reproducibility5 . In April 2020, the QUality Assessment and REProducibility for instruments and images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) initiative6 was formed. This initiative comprises imaging scientists from academia and industry who share a common interest in achieving a better understanding of the performance and limitations of microscopes and improved quality control (QC) in light microscopy. The ultimate goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to establish a set of common QC standards, guidelines, metadata models7,8 , and tools9,10 , including detailed protocols, with the ultimate aim of improving reproducible advances in scientific research. This White Paper 1) summarizes the major obstacles identified in the field that motivated the launch of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative; 2) identifies the urgent need to address these obstacles in a grassroots manner, through a community of stakeholders including, researchers, imaging scientists11 , bioimage analysts, bioimage informatics developers, corporate partners, funding agencies, standards organizations, scientific publishers, and observers of such; 3) outlines the current actions of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative, and 4) proposes future steps that can be taken to improve the dissemination and acceptance of the proposed guidelines to manage QC. To summarize, the principal goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to improve the overall quality and reproducibility of light microscope image data by introducing broadly accepted standard practices and accurately captured image data metrics.

/pdf/quarep-limi-a-community-driven-initiative-to-establish-362usplj7l.pdf

QUAREP-LiMi: A community-driven initiative to establish guidelines for quality assessment and reproducibility for instruments and images in light microscopy

1 - ABSTRACT Digital light microscopy provides powerful tools for quantitatively probing the real-time dynamics of subcellular structures. While the power of modern microscopy techniques is undeniable, rigorous record-keeping and quality control are required to ensure that imaging data may be properly interpreted (quality), reproduced (reproducibility), and used to extract reliable information and scientific knowledge which can be shared for further analysis (value). Keeping notes on microscopy experiments and quality control procedures ought to be straightforward, as the microscope is a machine whose components are defined and the performance measurable. Nevertheless, to this date, no universally adopted community-driven specifications exist that delineate the required information about the microscope hardware and acquisition settings (i.e., microscopy “data provenance” metadata) and the minimally accepted calibration metrics (i.e., microscopy quality control metadata) that should be automatically recorded by both commercial microscope manufacturers and customized microscope developers. In the absence of agreed guidelines, it is inherently difficult for scientists to create comprehensive records of imaging experiments and ensure the quality of resulting image data or for manufacturers to incorporate standardized reporting and performance metrics. To add to the confusion, microscopy experiments vary greatly in aim and complexity, ranging from purely descriptive work to complex, quantitative and even sub-resolution studies that require more detailed reporting and quality control measures. To solve this problem, the 4D Nucleome Initiative (4DN) (1, 2) Imaging Standards Working Group (IWG), working in conjunction with the BioImaging North America (BINA) Quality Control and Data Management Working Group (QC-DM-WG) (3), here propose light Microscopy Metadata specifications that scale with experimental intent and with the complexity of the instrumentation and analytical requirements. They consist of a revision of the Core of the Open Microscopy Environment (OME) Data Model, which forms the basis for the widely adopted Bio-Formats library (4–6), accompanied by a suite of three extensions, each with three tiers, allowing the classification of imaging experiments into levels of increasing imaging and analytical complexity (7, 8). Hence these specifications not only provide an OME-based comprehensive set of metadata elements that should be recorded, but they also specify which subset of the full list should be recorded for a given experimental tier. In order to evaluate the extent of community interest, an extensive outreach effort was conducted to present the proposed metadata specifications to members of several core-facilities and international bioimaging initiatives including the European Light Microscopy Initiative (ELMI), Global BioImaging (GBI), and European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) - European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI). Consequently, close ties were established between our endeavour and the undertakings of the recently established QUAlity Assessment and REProducibility for Instruments and Images in Light Microscopy global community initiative (9). As a result this flexible 4DN-BINA-OME (NBO namespace) framework (7, 8) represents a turning point towards achieving community-driven Microscopy Metadata standards that will increase data fidelity, improve repeatability and reproducibility, ease future analysis and facilitate the verifiable comparison of different datasets, experimental setups, and assays, and it demonstrates the method for future extensions. Such universally accepted microscopy standards would serve a similar purpose as the Encode guidelines successfully adopted by the genomic community (10, 11). The intention of this proposal is therefore to encourage participation, critiques and contributions from the entire imaging community and all stakeholders, including research and imaging scientists, facility personnel, instrument manufacturers, software developers, standards organizations, scientific publishers, and funders.

https://biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.25.441198v1.full.pdf

Towards community-driven metadata standards for light microscopy: tiered specifications extending the OME model

Live-cell microscopy is a powerful tool that can reveal cellular behavior as well as the underlying molecular processes. A key advantage of microscopy is that by visualizing biological processes, it can provide direct insights. Nevertheless, live-cell imaging can be technically challenging and prone to artifacts. For a successful experiment, many careful decisions are required at all steps from hardware selection to downstream image analysis. Facing these questions can be particularly intimidating due to the requirement for expertise in multiple disciplines, ranging from optics, biophysics, and programming to cell biology. In this review, we aim to summarize the key points that need to be considered when setting up and analyzing a live-cell imaging experiment. While we put a particular focus on yeast, many of the concepts discussed are applicable also to other organisms. In addition, we discuss reporting and data sharing strategies that we think are critical to improve reproducibility in the field.

Live cell microscopy: From image to insight

Capturing mitochondria’s intricate and dynamic structure poses a daunting challenge for optical nanoscopy. Different labeling strategies have been demonstrated for live-cell stimulated emission depletion (STED) microscopy of mitochondria, but orthogonal strategies are yet to be established, and image acquisition has suffered either from photodamage to the organelles or from rapid photobleaching. Therefore, live-cell nanoscopy of mitochondria has been largely restricted to 2D single-color recordings of cancer cells. Here, by conjugation of cyclooctatetraene to a benzo-fused cyanine dye, we report a mitochondrial inner-membrane (IM) fluorescent marker, PK Mito Orange (PKMO), featuring efficient STED at 775 nm, strong photostability and markedly reduced phototoxicity. PKMO enables super-resolution recordings of inner-membrane dynamics for extended periods in immortalized mammalian cell lines, primary cells, and organoids. Photostability and reduced phototoxicity of PKMO open the door to live-cell 3D STED nanoscopy of mitochondria for three-dimensional analysis of the convoluted IM. PKMO is optically orthogonal with green and far-red markers allowing multiplexed recordings of mitochondria using commercial STED microscopes. Using multi-color STED, we demonstrate that imaging with PKMO can capture the sub-mitochondrial localization of proteins, or interactions of mitochondria with different cellular components, such as the ER or the cytoskeleton at sub-100 nm resolution. Thereby, this work offers a versatile tool for studying mitochondrial inner-membrane architecture and dynamics in a multiplexed manner.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.09.491019

Multi-color live-cell STED nanoscopy of mitochondria with a gentle inner membrane stain

Although fluorescence microscopy is ubiquitous in biomedical research, microscopy methods reporting is inconsistent and perhaps undervalued. We emphasize the importance of appropriate microscopy methods reporting and seek to educate researchers about how microscopy metadata impact data interpretation. We provide comprehensive guidelines and resources to enable accurate reporting for the most common fluorescence light microscopy modalities. We aim to improve microscopy reporting, thus improving the quality, rigor and reproducibility of image-based science. Comprehensive guidelines and resources to enable accurate reporting for the most common fluorescence light microscopy modalities are reported with the goal of improving microscopy reporting, rigor and reproducibility.

/pdf/best-practices-and-tools-for-reporting-reproducible-1cntteavfg.pdf

Tim J. Ross-Elliott

Papers

Best practices and tools for reporting reproducible fluorescence microscopy methods.