Most super-resolution microscopy methods depend on steps that contribute to the formation of image artefacts. Here we present NanoJ-SQUIRREL, an ImageJ-based analytical approach providing a quantitative assessment of super-resolution image quality. By comparing diffraction-limited images and super-resolution equivalents of the same focal volume, this approach generates a quantitative map of super-resolution defects, as well as methods for their correction. To illustrate its broad applicability to super-resolution approaches we apply our method to Localization Microscopy, STED and SIM images of a variety of in-cell structures including microtubules, poxviruses, neuronal actin rings and clathrin coated pits. We particularly focus on single-molecule localisation microscopy, where super-resolution reconstructions often feature imperfections not present in the original data. By showing the quantitative evolution of data quality over these varied sample preparation, acquisition and super-resolution methods we display the potential of NanoJ-SQUIRREL to guide optimization of superresolution imaging parameters.
Super-Resolution Microscopy | Image Quality | Sample OptimizationCorrespondence: j.mercer@ucl.ac.uk, r.henriques@ucl.ac.uk
IntroductionSuper-resolution microscopy is a collection of imaging approaches achieving spatial resolutions beyond the diffraction limit of conventional optical microscopy (~250 nm). Notably, methods based on Localization Microscopy (LM) such as Photo-Activated Localization Microscopy (PALM) (1) and Stochastic Optical Reconstruction Microscopy (STORM) (2) can achieve resolutions better than 30 nm. Due to their easy implementation and the large set of widely accessible resources developed by the research community these methods have become widespread (3-6). The quality and resolution achieved by super-resolution is largely dependent on factors such as the photophysics of fluorophores used (7), chemical environment of the sample (7, 8), imaging conditions (4, 5, 8, 9) and analytical approaches used to produce the final super-resolution images (9, 10). Balancing these factors is critical to ensure that the recovered data accurately represents the underlying biological structure. Thus far data quality assessment in super-resolution relies on researcherbased comparison of the data relative to prior knowledge of the expected structures (11, 12) or benchmarking of the data against other high-resolution imaging methods such as Electron Microscopy (1). An exception exists in the Structured Illumination Microscopy (SIM) field (13), where analytical frameworks exist for quantitative evaluation of image quality (14, 15). The simplest, most robust way to visually identify defects in super-resolution images is the direct comparison of diffraction-limited and super-resolved images of a sample. Assuming that the images represent the same focal volume, the super-resolution image should provide an improved resolution representation of the reference diffraction-limited image. While this allows for identificatio...