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*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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.
Original languageEnglish
Article number20760
Number of pages12
JournalScientific Reports
Volume14
Early online date5 Sept 2024
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 5 Sept 2024

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Quantifying DNA damage following light sheet and confocal imaging of the mammalian embryo'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this