
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39237572
71443
10.1038/s41598-024-71443-x
Article
Quantifying DNA damage following light sheet and confocal imaging of the mammalian embryo
Chow Darren J. X. 124
Schartner Erik P. 2
Corsetti Stella sc337@st-andrews.ac.uk

5
Upadhya Avinash 234
Morizet Josephine 5
Gunn-Moore Frank J. 6
Dunning Kylie R. 124
Dholakia Kishan kd1@st-andrews.ac.uk

345
1 https://ror.org/00892tw58 grid.1010.0 0000 0004 1936 7304 Robinson Research Institute, School of Biomedicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
2 https://ror.org/00892tw58 grid.1010.0 0000 0004 1936 7304 Institute for Photonics and Advanced Sensing, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
3 https://ror.org/00892tw58 grid.1010.0 0000 0004 1936 7304 School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
4 https://ror.org/00892tw58 grid.1010.0 0000 0004 1936 7304 Centre of Light for Life, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
5 https://ror.org/02wn5qz54 grid.11914.3c 0000 0001 0721 1626 SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife, UK
6 https://ror.org/02wn5qz54 grid.11914.3c 0000 0001 0721 1626 School of Biology, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife, UK
5 9 2024
5 9 2024
2024
14 2076022 12 2023
28 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
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.

Subject terms

Biological techniques
Optics and photonics
Physics
European Union’s Horizon 2020 project “Proscope”871212 UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilEP/P030017/1 http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000925 National Health and Medical Research Council APP2003786 Dunning Kylie R. Future Making Fellowship, University of Adelaidehttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000923 Australian Research Council FL210100099 Dholakia Kishan Hospital Research Foundation FellowshipMid-career fellowship C-MCF-58-2019 Dholakia Kishan issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Optical imaging has become ever more prevalent in the field of developmental biology1,2. This surge is primarily driven by its innate capacity to unravel intricate biological processes with high spatio-temporal resolution3. Historically, optical imaging has relied on the use of exogenous fluorescent labels to visualise and quantify specific biological phenomena within cellular structures. However, these external fluorescence labels have the potential to inadvertently perturb the underlying cell biology4 and pose challenges in the accurate interpretation of observed cellular changes. Recently, there has been a shift in the field towards label-free imaging3, specifically by capturing cellular autofluorescence. This approach leverages the inherent fluorescence emitted by endogenous molecules2, without the need for exogenous labels. Examples of this include specific co-factors associated with cellular metabolism3.

Label-free fluorescence microscopy holds great promise for the evaluation of early mammalian embryos. Current techniques for assessing embryo viability, such as visual inspection to evaluate preimplantation development or a biopsy of cells for genetic testing, are known to be highly subjective and inaccurate5–7. The inability to accurately predict embryo viability is a key contributor to the low success rate of clinical in vitro fertilisation (IVF; ∼30% live birth rate per initiated cycle)8. Therefore, there is a need for an accurate and non-invasive diagnostic: optical imaging has the prospect of fulfilling this need. Recent studies, including our own work, have shown that label-free imaging analysis can detect metabolic differences that correlate with embryo viability9–11. This was performed with one-photon light sheet microscopy, epifluorescent or confocal microscopies. A point scanning approach has also been used in two-photon imaging12. Given the inherent simplicity of using a one-photon approach, making it amenable for future clinical translation, here we concentrate on a comparison between confocal and light sheet imaging, both in a one-photon embodiment. Our study determines the level of DNA damage accrued when acquiring a 3D volumetric image with both light sheet microscopy and confocal microscopy.

Confocal scanning microscopy has long been the gold standard for collecting cellular autofluorescence. For this technique, the entire sample volume is illuminated each time a z-plane is imaged11. Such an illumination scheme can lead to photobleaching and phototoxicity13. Nonetheless, confocal microscopy has continued to be used widely for studying developmental processes in various cell types, including human cornea14,15 and lung tissue16, as well as mouse and hamster embryonic cells17–19. Confocal microscopy has also been used for detecting dynamic changes in metabolism within live mouse oocytes9 and bovine embryos20. These studies employed a 405 nm light source to excite the endogenous metabolic fluorophore nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NAD(P)H)21. However, uncertainty surrounds the safety of this imaging modality for live embryos.

Light sheet microscopy has recently emerged as an alternative and prominent optical imaging modality for visualising and assessing embryo viability10,22. For such imaging, a thin sheet of light excites only the fluorescence from the z-plane of interest in the specimen. Therefore, this technique allows for rapid image acquisition. The approach has potentially reduced photobleaching when compared with epi-fluorescent imaging modalities, such as confocal microscopy. An example of such reduced photobleaching was seen in yeast cells tagged with exogenous fluorophores23. Overall, this has resulted in researchers using light sheet microscopy to study dynamic cellular processes such as embryo development and morphogenesis over a few hours to days, and in an array of species10,24–37. For example, we demonstrated the use of light sheet microscopy to non-invasively measure metabolic activity within mouse embryos10. This detected changes in the abundance of the metabolic fluorophores flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) and NAD(P)H throughout preimplantation development.

However, measurement of autofluorescence in either light sheet or confocal microscopy is not without its challenges: in particular, the signal may exhibit relatively weak intensity4. Autofluorescence is generally low compared to signals from exogenous fluorophores. A higher signal can generally be achieved by increasing excitation power, but typically at the cost of photobleaching and photodamage in the imaged sample38. Interestingly, light sheet microscopy achieves similar fluorescence signals to confocal microscopy with a lower light dose, thus reducing photobleaching and phototoxicity39. In this regard, Reynaud et al. showed that the photobleaching rate of exogenous fluorescent tags in yeast cells is six times higher with confocal microscopy than with light sheet imaging23. For the area of reproductive biology, prior investigations have demonstrated that embryos subjected to light sheet imaging did not impact their ability to complete preimplantation development10,30. However, such approaches do not provide a comprehensive investigation of photodamage, particularly DNA damage. The exposure of embryos to light during imaging can cause DNA damage40. Such damage is known to negatively impact embryos and is associated with poor developmental outcomes (decreased implantation potential/pregnancy success)41,42. Therefore, a robust assessment of DNA damage induced by light sheet and confocal imaging would be highly informative.

Here, we used both light sheet and confocal microscopy (at a wavelength of 405 nm) to image autofluorescence in blastocyst-stage embryos and determined the resultant impact on DNA integrity. For both modalities, we matched the signal-to-noise ratio of images and assessed DNA damage in the embryo. A sensitive assay for measuring DNA damage is immunohistochemistry for γH2AX. Phosphorylation of the histone variant H2AX, forming γH2AX, is indicative of double-strand breaks in DNA43,44. In our study, we utilised this assay to detect DNA damage in embryos following light sheet or confocal imaging. To the best of our knowledge, this marks the first confirmation that light sheet microscopy is a safe and preferred option for recording embryo autofluorescence.

Results

Characterisation of imaging with the light sheet microscopy and confocal microscopy

In order to compare the safety of confocal and light sheet microscopy, a preliminary characterisation of the two systems was performed. To determine the point spread function (PSF) of the light sheet and confocal microscope, we imaged 200 nm diameter isolated green fluorescent microspheres embedded in agarose. The maximum intensity projection of beads in the xy plane imaged using light sheet are shown in Fig. 1a. We determined the light sheet resolution by measuring the full width at half maximum (FWHM) in the lateral and axial directions from line profiles through twenty isolated fluorescent microspheres randomly sampled. For example, the maximum intensity profile for a single bead (marked by square target in Fig. 1a) in xy and yz planes are shown in Fig. 1b,c, respectively. The corresponding line profiles through the bead are represented in Fig. 1d,e, respectively. The lateral resolution was measured to be 0.656±0.06 μm. The axial resolution was 2.42±0.2 μm. The depth of field (DOF) of the light sheet itself was ∼70 μm. The DOF and light sheet amplitude on the screen (∼2.5 mm) determine the total field of view (FOV). As a result, we were able to image up to 20 embryos for a single z-stack. We used this DOF in our light sheet system to achieve a good axial resolution (∼2.42 μm). If a propagation invariant beam such as an Airy beam was used, the same axial resolution can be achieved with an extended DOF45. An Airy beam can be readily incorporated into a light sheet geometry similar to the one we use, if desired46. Figure 1d shows the maximum intensity projections of 20 beads acquired using confocal microscopy. The maximum intensity profile for a single bead in xy and yz planes are shown in Fig. 1e,f, respectively. The corresponding line profiles through the bead (b,e and c,f) are represented in Fig. 1g,h, respectively. The lateral resolution was measured to be 0.439±0.016 μm. The axial resolution was 3.099±0.283 μm. We confirmed that our sample size (20 beads) fulfilled the criteria of a random sample (Q–Q plot and Shapiro–Wilk test; P>0.05 for both lateral and axial data, respectively). We remark that we also performed a similar test on a smaller sample size of ten and recorded the same results (P>0.05 for 20 vs. 10 beads: Lateral (0.774 vs. 0.716) and Axial (0.233 vs. 0.231).Fig. 1 The light sheet (LS) propagates along the x-axis and is scanned with respect to the sample in the direction of the z-axis. (a) and (d) show the maximum intensity projections of images of 200 nm diameter fluorescent microspheres embedded in agarose acquired with the light sheet and the confocal setup, respectively. (b) and (e) are magnified views that show the single bead marked by the target in (a) and (d) in the xy plane. (c) and (f) are magnified views that show the intensity projection of the beads marked in (a) and (d) in the yz plane. In (c) the point-spread function is skewed due to the 45-degree illumination and detection angle with respect to the sample in the light sheet setup. (g) and (h) show the line profile across the beads marked by the targets and the line profile across the beads intensity projection in the xy and yz plane, respectively.

To achieve a faithful comparison between light sheet and confocal microscopy we standardised the parameters used for both imaging systems to provide a comparable signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for embryo autofluorescence. Typically due to sample preparation and excitation laser conditions, fair comparisons between imaging systems can be complicated. To mitigate this, we examined the imaging parameters employed by each system, focusing on the SNR of autofluorescence signals recorded for a more robust comparison. To determine the SNR for confocal microscopy, we scanned the total volume of a single blastocyst-stage embryo (∼100 μm in diameter). This took approximately thirty minutes. In contrast, the same volume was scanned with the light sheet microscope in approximately three minutes. Figure 2 shows representative images for a single z-plane of blastocyst-stage embryos, generated from their autofluorescence signal captured following confocal (Fig. 2a) or light sheet imaging (Fig. 2b). For each imaging system, we determined the SNR by measuring ten individual blastocyst-stage embryos with confocal and light sheet microscopy, which gives an average SNR value of 15.75±1.90 and 15.45±3.45, respectively (Fig. 2a,b). Supplementary File S2, and its associated videos, show 3D image reconstructions for autofluorescence of blastocyst-stage embryos obtained following imaging using confocal or light sheet microscopies. Interestingly, confocal microscopy had a limited imaging capability for this sample, resulting in a loss of autofluorescence signal in approximately half the volume of the embryo (Video 1; Supplementary File S2). In contrast, light sheet microscopy captured the entire volume of a blastocyst-stage embryo, allowing for true 3D image reconstruction (Video 2; Supplementary File S2). We postulate that the predominant contributing factor is photobleaching, an issue associated with the point-illumination approach.Fig. 2 Representative images of autofluorescence signals recorded with excitation at a wavelength of 405 nm for blastocyst-stage embryos using (a) confocal (SNR = 15.7) or (b) light sheet (SNR=15.5) microscopy. The images displayed in (a) and (b) were derived from a single z-slice from the total collected z-planes. 3D reconstruction for embryos acquired on both imaging systems can be found in Supplementary File S2: Videos 1 and 2 for confocal and light sheet microscopy, respectively. Images have been cropped to a comparable scale with no sharpening or other post-processing applied. Scale bar = 20 μm.

Effect of imaging with light sheet and confocal microscopy at a wavelength of 405 nm

To evaluate the impact of imaging on embryo DNA integrity, blastocyst-stage embryos underwent γH2AX staining following imaging with light-sheet or confocal microscopy (Fig. 3). Visually, embryos imaged using confocal microscopy appeared to have an increased number of nuclei containing γH2AX-positive foci (red) when compared to unexposed (control) embryos (Fig. 3f,b, respectively). In contrast, embryos subjected to light sheet imaging appeared to have similar levels of DNA damage to unexposed embryos (Fig. 3d,b, respectively). These observations were confirmed following quantification of DNA damage (Fig. 4a). Specifically, embryos imaged with confocal microscopy had a significant (3.2-fold) increase in the number of nuclei containing γH2AX foci when compared to the unexposed group (Fig. 4a; Confocal vs. Unexposed; P<0.0001). No significant difference was observed between embryos that were not imaged and embryos that were imaged with light sheet microscopy (Fig. 4a; Unexposed vs. Lightsheet; P>0.05). To confirm that the number of cells within an embryo did not confound our interpretation of imaging-induced DNA damage, we quantified cell number for each embryo (Fig. 4b) and presented DNA damage as a proportion of cells containing γH2AX foci (Fig. 4c). Interestingly, we found that confocal imaging significantly reduced the number of cells within embryos when compared to the light sheet imaged and unexposed groups (Fig. 4b; P<0.05), potentially indicating rapid cell depletion through light-induced apoptosis or or impaired proliferation47. However, this reduction in cell number did not alter the relationship between the three groups. When damage was presented as a proportion of nuclei containing γH2AX foci; confocal imaged embryos had a significantly higher level of DNA damage when compared to light sheet imaged and unexposed embryos (Fig. 4c; P<0.0001). Notably, embryos that were not imaged displayed a low level of DNA damage (Fig. 4c; Unexposed). This may be attributed to ambient light exposure from embryo handling during IVF, which does not occur during development in vivo48,49.Fig. 3 Representative images of DNA damage within embryos. Blastocyst-stage embryos were either not imaged (Unexposed; a, b), or imaged (at a wavelength of 405 nm) using light sheet microscopy (c,d) or confocal microscopy (e,f). Representative brightfield images of embryos (a,c,e) with corresponding maximum intensity projection of DNA damage (red: b,d,f) within individual nuclei (blue) are shown. Embryos were stained with DAPI (blue) and γH2AX (red foci) to visualise individual cell nuclei and DNA double-stranded breaks, respectively (see insets). Scale bar = 20 μm.

Fig. 4 Imaging of embryos using confocal microscopy resulted in significantly fewer cells and higher levels of DNA damage. Blastocyst-stage embryos were kept in the dark (unexposed) or exposed to 405 nm laser excitation on either a light sheet or confocal microscope. Embryos were then returned to culture for 30 min prior to fixation. DNA damage and cell nuclei were identified via γH2AX immunohistochemistry and DAPI staining, respectively. (a) shows the absolute number of nuclei containing γH2AX-positive foci per embryo. (b) shows the total number of cells per embryo (DAPI-stained nuclei), while (c) expresses the levels of DNA damage as a proportion of nuclei containing γH2AX-positive foci per embryo. Data are presented as mean ± SEM, n = 36–45 embryos per treatment group, from 3 independent experimental replicates, and analysed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test (a,b) or Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s multiple comparison test (c). *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ****P<0.0001.

Next, we examined whether multiple rounds of light sheet imaging resulted in elevated levels of DNA damage. This was evaluated by subjecting embryos to one, five or ten repeated cycles of volumetric imaging using light sheet microscopy (equivalent to a total imaging duration of three, fifteen or thirty minutes, respectively; Fig. 5). We found elevated levels of DNA damage with repeated cycles of imaging (Fig. 5; Light sheet: one vs. five and ten cycles; P<0.05). Specifically, embryos imaged for five or ten cycles with light sheet microscopy had significantly higher levels of DNA damage when compared to embryos that were imaged once or not imaged (Fig. 5a; five or ten cycles vs. Unexposed or one; P<0.05). As described above, we determined the impact of imaging on cell/nuclei number. Embryos that underwent five rounds of light sheet imaging had significantly fewer nuclei compared to embryos that were imaged once (Fig. 5b; P<0.05). Interestingly, all light sheet imaged groups (one, five and ten) were comparable and not significantly different from the non-imaged (Unexposed) group (Fig. 5b; P>0.05). When accounting for cell number, the DNA damage results persisted: Embryos that underwent repeated cycles of light sheet imaging had a significantly higher proportion of cells containing DNA damage when compared to embryos that were not imaged or underwent a single cycle of imaging (Fig. 5c; P<0.05). These data show that light sheet imaging is capable of inducing DNA damage within the embryo, however, this requires multiple cycles of volumetric imaging. Furthermore, we observed that DNA damage for five and ten cycles of imaging was comparable and postulate that this may be due to this DNA repair mechanism reaching maximum capacity by five cycles of imaging50.Fig. 5 Increasing cycles of light sheet imaging induces increased levels of DNA damage. Blastocyst-stage embryos were either kept in the dark (unexposed), or subjected to increasing rounds of imaging using light sheet microscopy (one, five or ten z-stacks). The total imaging duration to acquire these z-stack(s) is shown. Following imaging, embryos were returned to the incubator for an additional 30 min prior to fixation. DNA damage and cell nuclei were identified via γH2AX immunohistochemistry and DAPI staining, respectively. (a) shows the absolute number of nuclei containing γH2AX-positive foci per embryo. (b) shows the total number of cells per embryo (DAPI-stained nuclei), while (c) expresses the levels of DNA damage as a proportion of nuclei containing γH2AX-positive foci per embryo. Data are presented as mean ± SEM, n = 41–51 embryos, from 3 independent experimental replicates, analysed using Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s multiple comparison test. *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001; ****P<0.0001.

We also evaluated the photobleaching rate of autofluorescence from embryos during confocal and light sheet imaging (405 nm excitation, Fig. 6). We found that the photobleaching rate was dramatically lower when embryos were imaged with light sheet microscopy compared to confocal microscopy (Fig. 6), providing evidence for the compatibility of light sheet microscopy for autofluorescence imaging. This is consistent with previous literature23,51–54 which focused on imaging using exogeneous fluorescent tags. Interestingly, we discovered an initial increase followed by a decrease in fluorescence intensity when using confocal microscopy (Fig. 6). This may be attributed to photobiological effects, altering underlying metabolic pathways or cellular structure55–57. Collectively, our findings show that confocal imaging is harmful to embryos, inducing levels of DNA damage that may not be compatible with subsequent development.Fig. 6 A semi-quantitative comparison of the photobleaching rate during confocal and light sheet imaging. Autofluorescence from blastocyst-stage embryos were recorded during confocal or light sheet imaging (both at 405 nm). To compare photobleaching, images at a single z-plane were acquired on both systems, using the same conditions as Fig. 2. Each embryo was imaged for 100 frames (n = 13 and 17 embryos for the light sheet and confocal groups, respectively). Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean.

Discussion

Optical imaging for developmental biology has gained prominence in recent times due to its ability to unveil complex biological processes with high spatial-temporal resolution. Optical imaging has been traditionally reliant on external fluorescent labeling. It is now transitioning toward label-free methods, utilising intrinsic autofluorescence emitted by endogenous molecules. An example is specific co-factors associated with cellular metabolism. In this study, we performed a comparative analysis between light sheet microscopy and confocal microscopy for autofluorescence imaging of preimplantation murine embryos. Our results provide evidence that light sheet microscopy is safer for embryo autofluorescence imaging than confocal microscopy.

First, we characterised the PSF for the two systems and found comparable lateral and axial resolutions for light sheet and confocal microscopy. Subsequently, we determined and optimised the imaging parameters for both systems to achieve comparable SNR for images of blastocyst-stage embryos. For a similar SNR, the image acquisition time was ten times longer with confocal microscopy, despite a larger step size (z-planes 2 μm apart), when compared to light sheet microscopy (z-planes 1 μm apart). Furthermore, in contrast to confocal microscopy, light sheet microscopy was able to generate a 3D image reconstruction that displays the autofluorescence signals for the entire volume of a blastocyst-stage embryo. We attribute this loss of signal associated with confocal microscopy to photobleaching from this point-scanning illumination approach. This observation aligns with existing literature that employed exogenous fluorophores58,59. This provides evidence demonstrating the efficiency and rapid image acquisition capability of light sheet microscopy, which agrees with previous literature60. We do note that light sheet microscopy may suffer from shadowing effects when imaging highly scattering samples. This was not an issue for the present work due to the relative transparency of embryos and their refractive index being comparable to water61.

Encouragingly, when assessing the impact of imaging, light sheet imaged and non-imaged embryos had comparable levels of DNA damage. Conversely, embryos imaged using the confocal microscope had a significantly higher level of DNA damage, persisting even after accounting for the total cell number within the embryo. It is important to note that any differences in nuclei shape, morphology, and size are likely to be attributed to the developmental stage of the embryo. It is at this stage that a fluid-filled cavity develops and continues to enlarge to a point where it takes up more than three quarters of the entire volume of the embryo. This expansion exerts a mechanical force that changes the shape and size of nuclei62. Consequently, any observed morphological variations in cell nuclei can be attributed to this developmental stage, which progresses as a continuum. Furthermore, in this study, DNA damage was assessed by identifying each nuclei containing γH2AX (red) foci, and thus, the influence of nuclei shape and size on DNA damage is negligible and thus unlikely to confound our results. Furthermore, the low level of DNA damage in the light sheet imaged group is likely attributed to the thin, sheet-like geometry of the setup, which only illuminates the plane of interest. This contrasts with the point scanning method employed by confocal microscopy, where light traverses the entire volume of the embryo for each optical section23. Low levels of photodamage from light sheet imaging in this study are in agreement with existing literature30.

Interestingly, we found that five and ten rounds of repeated light sheet imaging resulted in a significant increase in DNA damage when compared to embryos that were imaged once or were not imaged. Based on our data, the threshold for inducing DNA damage necessitates more than one round of imaging. It would be of value to determine the minimum number of light sheet imaging cycles required to significantly increase DNA damage. We can conclude from our data that this lies somewhere between two and five cycles of volumetric imaging when using the imaging parameters described here. While the number of cycles required to induce elevated levels of DNA damage may be less than five, our study provides evidence that the limit of DNA damage able to be detected is reached with five rounds of light sheet imaging. We attribute this to the observation that ten repeated cycles did not result in a further increase in the level of DNA damage detected using γH2AX immunohistochemistry. Further, we assessed photobleaching of autofluorescence in embryos. We found that autofluorescence intensity photobleached at a slower rate with light sheet compared to confocal imaging, highlighting the compatibility of light sheet for long-term monitoring of dynamic biological processes, such as changes in metabolic activity during preimplantation embryo development. Our findings on the rate of photobleaching with confocal and light sheet microscopy are in agreement with previous literature on other biological samples when using exogenous fluorescent tags23,51–54. We remark that the power level utilised in this study is both appropriate and sufficient to capture cellular autofluorescence at 405 nm (Fig. 2 and supplementary videos), providing evidence that the imaging conditions used here can yield valuable metrics for embryo metabolism and thus predicting viability. Collectively, these findings provide evidence that light sheet microscopy is a safe and efficient optical approach for embryo imaging, and affirms its potential as the preferred method for non-invasive imaging of embryos.

In this study, autofluorescence imaging of preimplantation murine embryos was conducted with an excitation wavelength of 405 nm. While our results affirm the safety of light sheet microscopy at this widely used wavelength, it would be interesting to investigate potential photodamage in embryos caused at other wavelengths in the UVA10 and visible ranges63 for metabolic studies using one-photon excitation. Our study focused on 405 nm illumination. A future study could also encompass the use of pulsed lasers for modalities such as fluorescence lifetime imaging, two-, and three-photon imaging. Two-photon fluorescence lifetime imaging in a point scanning geometry has shown merit for measuring differences in metabolism between embryos12. Moving to such multiphoton approaches generally improves excitation confinement and depth penetration, though at the expense of added complexity and cost. It would be interesting to explore how, in the two-photon approach, light sheet imaging compares to a point scanning approach. Such a study is outside the scope of the present work but could explore the pulsed laser parameters which are known to influence biological function64,65. Finally, we note that this study was conducted in a mouse model, necessitating additional research in other species to determine the generalisability of our findings to a broader biological context. Overall, our study shows that light-sheet imaging is safer than confocal microscopy for imaging embryo autofluorescence.

Methods

Light sheet microscopy

A schematic of the open-top light sheet setup is shown in Fig. 7a. A 405 nm continuous wave laser was used as the illumination source. The laser power was modulated by using a half-wave plate (WP) and a polarising beam splitter (PBS) and maintained at 3 mW at the sample. The beam was expanded by using a telescope (L1 and L2) and then relayed by lenses (L3–L6) and the illumination objective (OBJ1). The light sheet was generated by a galvo scanner (SM) which rapidly scans the beam. Fluorescence was collected by the detection objective (OBJ2) and relayed to the camera (CAM) by a tube lens (TL) after being filtered using a long pass filter (LP) and a notch filter (NF). A custom 3D-printed sample holder was mounted above the water reservoir and was attached to an XYZ translation stage to enable the sample holder to be lowered between the two objectives (see Fig. 7b). A 125 μm thin membrane (FEP; Katco) with the same refractive index as water was placed into a groove in the sample holder and sealed with a biocompatible UV-cured glue applied to the bottom of the chamber at the interface between the chamber body and the membrane. The setup was also fitted with a controlled heating stage set to maintain the temperature within the chamber at 37 °C. In our setup, the imaging plane is oriented 45 degrees relative to the sample translation which is obtained using a high-resolution motorized linear actuator. A series of images were recorded with 1 μm step size. To interpolate the images sequence into the physical coordinate space a custom Matlab software was used. The process of conversion to physical space has been described in detail in our previous work66. The optical power after the objective (sample plane) was measured to be ∼3 mW, with an average signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 15.5 for the autofluorescence signals recorded with 405 nm excitation. We defined SNR as the mean signal intensity (Signal-background intensity) divided by the standard deviation of background intensity.Fig. 7 (a) Experimental setup for light-sheet measurements. Laser = 405 nm (Toptica iBeam Smart, 300 mW), NF = Notch Filter (407 nm), WP = half-waveplate, PBS = polarising beam splitter, L1 = 75 mm, L2 = 100 mm, L3 = 100 mm, L4 =100 mm, L5= 50 mm, L6 = 75 mm, M1–2= mirrors, SM = Scanning Mirror (Galvo, Thorlabs, NJ), OBJ1 = 10X, Nikon and OBJ2 = 16X, Nikon, S = sample holder, LP = long pass filter (405 nm), TL= Tube lens (400 mm), CAM = sCMOS camera (Iris 15, Teledyne Photometrics, AZ). (b) A top view of the sample holder lined with FEP film on top of the setup with a drop of imaging media, overlaid with paraffin oil, used for embryo imaging.

Confocal microscopy

Confocal images were collected on an Olympus FV3000i laser scanning confocal microscope system, using 405 nm excitation. To obtain a comparable resolution a 20× objective (Olympus UPLSAPO 20×) was used, with a numerical aperture of 0.75 and a working distance of 0.6 mm. The sample chamber was maintained at 37 °C at all times during imaging. Images were collected at a resolution of 1024 by 1024 pixels, with a spacing of 0.621 μm giving a total field of view (FOV) of 636 μm. Z-stacks were collected at 2 μm intervals, covering a distance slightly larger than the embryos (average ∼50 z-planes to include just above and below the whole embryo). Images were collected with a photomultiplier tube (PMT) setting of 500 V, and 40 μs integration per pixel. The optical power at the objective was measured to be ∼0.345 mW, with an average SNR of 15.7 for the autofluorescence signals recorded with 405 nm excitation.

Preparation of phantoms for light sheet and confocal imaging

In order to characterise the systems’ point spread function (PSF) phantoms made up of 200 nm diameter green fluorescent microspheres mixed with 1% agarose were prepared. The samples were pipetted into a 3D-printed sample holder for light sheet imaging (Fig. 7b) and a 35 mm glass-bottom dish (Ibidi, Martinsried, Planegg, Germany) for confocal imaging. The parameters used for phantom imaging on both systems were the same used for embryo imaging, which gives an SNR value of 15.5 for light sheet and 15.7 for confocal microscope (Fig. 2). However, when the same settings for embryo imaging were used for phantom imaging using confocal microscope (where spatial resolution was 1 pixel = 0.621 μm), the 200 nm beads were effectively limited to a single pixel (Supplementary Fig. S1) and consequently, the details of PSF could not be accurately resolved due to under-sampling. To address this, we implemented Nyquist’s theorem by increasing the optical zoom while maintaining other parameters equal to that used for embryo imaging (such as imaging dish, laser power, and objective lens), which increases the spatial resolution from 0.621 to 0.13 μm. This Nyquist-optimised parameter was used for PSF quantification of phantoms as shown in Fig. 1.

Animal ethics and embryo collection

Female (21–23 days old) and male (6–8 weeks old) CBA x C57BL6 first filial (F1) generation mice were obtained from Laboratory Animal Services (University of Adelaide, Australia) and maintained on a 12 h light:12 h dark cycle with rodent chow and water provided ad libitum. All animal studies associated with this project were approved by the University of Adelaide’s Animal Ethics Committee (M-2019-097) and were conducted in accordance with the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. The studies are reported in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines67. Mice were hormonally stimulated to harvest embryos as previously described9. Briefly, female mice were administered intraperitoneally (i.p.) with 5 IU of equine chorionic gonadotrophin (eCG), followed by 5 IU of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) 48 h later. At 13 h post-hCG, male mice of proven fertility were culled by cervical dislocation and the epididymis and vas deferens harvested. Spermatozoa were released from the corpus and caudal region of the epididymis as well as the vas deferens by blunt dissection into pre-warmed Research Fertilisation medium (ARTLab Solutions, Australia) and allowed to capacitate for 45 min in a humidified incubator at 37∘C with 5% O2, 6% CO2, balanced in air. Female mice were culled by cervical dislocation at 14 h post-hCG and oviducts harvested. Ovulated cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) were released from the oviducts by gently puncturing the ampulla with a 29-gauge needle. At 14 h post-hCG, ovulated COCs and capacitated spermatozoa were co-incubated in Research Fertilisation media for 4 h in a humidified incubator at 37∘C with 5% O2, 6% CO2, balanced in air. Resulting presumptive zygotes were transferred into Research Cleave medium (in groups of 10; 2 μl per embryo) and allowed to develop to the blastocyst stage.

Sample preparation for imaging using light sheet and confocal microscopy

Blastocyst-stage embryos were collected at 96 h post-IVF and allocated into either a dedicated purpose-built imaging chamber, lined with a 127 μm FEP film for light sheet imaging (as described in Fig.7b), or a 35 mm glass bottom IBIDI dish for confocal imaging. For light sheet imaging, embryos were imaged in a 20 μl drop of Research Wash medium (ARTLab Solutions, Australia) overlaid with paraffin oil. A similar setup was implemented for confocal imaging, with the exception that embryos were imaged in a 10 μl drop of Research Wash medium. The Research Wash medium provides a physiological-pH buffered medium for live embryo imaging. All imaging was performed with the temperature of media maintained at 37∘C. All embryos following imaging were returned to culture in the incubator for an additional 30 min prior to fixation for DNA damage analysis, to allow for appropriate activation of DNA damage response, i.e. recruitment of histone γH2AX to the site of DNA double-strand breaks43.

Phototoxicity and photobleaching assessment following light sheet and confocal microscopy

To assess phototoxicity, blastocyst-stage embryos were kept in the dark (unexposed) or imaged using either confocal or light sheet microscopy. A separate cohort of embryos was also included to assess the impact of repeated imaging cycles with light sheet microscopy: one, five, or ten rounds of volumetric imaging using light sheet microscopy that corresponds to a total imaging duration of three, fifteen, or thirty minutes, respectively. This was compared to confocal microscopy, which required approximately thirty minutes to acquire a single z-stack. For the assessment of photobleaching, a total of 100 frames were captured at a single z-plane for blastocyst-stage embryos. A region of interest within the inner cell mass of blastocyst-stage embryo was used to calculate the changes in autofluorescence intensity across all 100 frames.

Immunohistochemistry for DNA damage

All immunohistostaining procedures were carried out at room temperature. Immunofluorescence for phosphorylated gamma-H2AX (γH2AX) was used to assess for double-stranded DNA breaks as previously described68. Briefly, blastocyst-stage embryos were fixed for 30 min in 400 μl of 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) diluted in phosphate buffer saline (PBS). After fixation, embryos were washed with 200 μl of 0.3 mg/ml polyvinyl alcohol in PBS (PBV) and permeabilised for 30 min in 0.25% Triton-X diluted in PBS. To prevent non-specific binding, embryos were blocked for 1 h in 2% bovine serum albumin (BSA) diluted in PBS. Embryos were then incubated for 1 h with anti-yH2AX rabbit monoclonal Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated primary antibody (Ser139, 20E3, Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, MA, USA) at 1:200 dilution in 1% BSA in PBS. A negative control without primary antibody in an otherwise complete 1% BSA/PBS solution was also included. Following incubation, embryos were washed with PBV three times before incubation for 1 h in the dark with an anti-rabbit Alexa Fluor 594-conjugated secondary antibody (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) at 1:400 dilution in 1% BSA in PBS. Embryos were also counterstained with 3 mM of 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) to visualise nuclei. After secondary antibody incubation, embryos were washed with PBV three times before being mounted on glass slides with secure-seal spacers (0.12 mm apart) in 5 μl PBV and sealed with a 22 mm × 22mm glass coverslip prior to imaging.

Image acquisition and analysis of γH2AX immunostaining

All images of γH2AX immunostaining were captured on an Olympus FV3000i laser scanning confocal microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Images were collected with a 60x immersion oil-compatible objective (Olympus, NA = 1.4). Images were captured at 2-μm intervals through the entire embryo and a final z-stack was generated for each embryo. Samples were excited at a laser wavelength of 405 nm (emission wavelength detection range: 430–470 nm) for DAPI and 594 nm (emission detection range: 499–520 nm) for γH2AX. Image analysis was performed using ImageJ for Windows 10 (Fiji, MD, USA). For image analysis of γH2AX, z-stack images of DAPI and γH2AX channels were first merged, and then the number of nuclei containing γH2AX-positive foci was counted manually.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis for DNA damage was performed using GraphPad Prism version 9 for Windows 10 (GraphPad Holdings LLC, CA, USA). Data were checked for normality and subjected to appropriate statistical testing as described in the figure legend. For example, as data in Fig. 4c did not follow a normal (Gaussian) distribution, a Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s multiple comparison test was used for statistical analysis, as opposed to a one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test for normally distributed data (Fig. 4a,b). Statistical significant differences were set at P<0.05.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-71443-x.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge early contributions to the experimental setup from Nicolas Dubost. This work is supported by funding from UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/P030017/1), Australian Research Council (FL210100099), the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP2003786) and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 project “Proscope” (grant 871212). K.R.D is supported by a Hospital Research Foundation Fellowship (Mid-career fellowship C-MCF-58-2019) and a Future Making Fellowship (University of Adelaide).

Author contributions

K.D. and K.R.D. conceived and supervised the study. S.C. designed and built the light sheet setup which, was adapted by D.C. and E.P.S. K.D. and F.J.G.M. raised the funding for the instrument. D.C., E.P.S., and A.U. performed the experimental studies with input from S.C. and J.M. D.C., E.P.S. and S.C. analysed the data. D.C., S.C., K.R.D. and K.D. wrote the paper. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript.

Data availability

Data associated with this research are available and can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

These authors contributed equally: Kylie R. Dunning and Kishan Dholakia.
==== Refs
References

1. Balasubramanian H Hobson CM Chew T-L Aaron JS Imagining the future of optical microscopy: Everything, everywhere, all at once Commun. Biol. 2023 6 1096 10.1038/s42003-023-05468-9 37898673
Balasubramanian, H., Hobson, C. M., Chew, T.-L. & Aaron, J. S. Imagining the future of optical microscopy: Everything, everywhere, all at once. Commun. Biol. 6, 1096. 10.1038/s42003-023-05468-9 (2023).37898673 10.1038/s42003-023-05468-9
2. Ghosh B Agarwal K Viewing life without labels under optical microscopes Commun. Biol. 2023 6 559 10.1038/s42003-023-04934-8 37231084
Ghosh, B. & Agarwal, K. Viewing life without labels under optical microscopes. Commun. Biol. 6, 559. 10.1038/s42003-023-04934-8 (2023).37231084 10.1038/s42003-023-04934-8
3. Wang S Larina IV Larin KV Label-free optical imaging in developmental biology [invited] Biomed. Opt. Express 2020 11 2017 2040 10.1364/BOE.381359 32341864
Wang, S., Larina, I. V. & Larin, K. V. Label-free optical imaging in developmental biology [invited]. Biomed. Opt. Express 11, 2017–2040. 10.1364/BOE.381359 (2020).32341864 10.1364/BOE.381359
4. Jensen EC Use of fluorescent probes: Their effect on cell biology and limitations Anat. Rec. (Hoboken) 2012 295 2031 6 10.1002/ar.22602 23060362
Jensen, E. C. Use of fluorescent probes: Their effect on cell biology and limitations. Anat. Rec. (Hoboken) 295, 2031–6. 10.1002/ar.22602 (2012).23060362 10.1002/ar.22602
5. Adolfsson E Andershed AN Morphology vs morphokinetics: A retrospective comparison of inter-observer and intra-observer agreement between embryologists on blastocysts with known implantation outcome JBRA Assist. Reprod. 2018 22 228 237 10.5935/1518-0557.20180042 29912521
Adolfsson, E. & Andershed, A. N. Morphology vs morphokinetics: A retrospective comparison of inter-observer and intra-observer agreement between embryologists on blastocysts with known implantation outcome. JBRA Assist. Reprod. 22, 228–237. 10.5935/1518-0557.20180042 (2018).29912521 10.5935/1518-0557.20180042
6. Takahashi S Johnston J Patrizio P Lessons from the premature adoption of preimplantation embryo testing Genet. Med. 2019 21 1038 1040 10.1038/s41436-018-0314-z 30262926
Takahashi, S., Johnston, J. & Patrizio, P. Lessons from the premature adoption of preimplantation embryo testing. Genet. Med. 21, 1038–1040. 10.1038/s41436-018-0314-z (2019).30262926 10.1038/s41436-018-0314-z
7. Awadalla MS Ingles SA Ahmady A Design and validation of a model for quality control monitoring of dichotomous in vitro fertilization outcomes Fertil. Steril. 2021 116 453 461 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.02.002 33762113
Awadalla, M. S., Ingles, S. A. & Ahmady, A. Design and validation of a model for quality control monitoring of dichotomous in vitro fertilization outcomes. Fertil. Steril. 116, 453–461. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.02.002 (2021).33762113 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.02.002
8. De Geyter C 20 years of the European IVF-monitoring consortium registry: What have we learned? A comparison with registries from two other regions Hum. Reprod. 2020 35 2832 2849 10.1093/humrep/deaa250 33188410
De Geyter, C. et al. 20 years of the European IVF-monitoring consortium registry: What have we learned? A comparison with registries from two other regions. Hum. Reprod. 35, 2832–2849. 10.1093/humrep/deaa250 (2020).33188410 10.1093/humrep/deaa250
9. Tan TC Brown HM Thompson JG Mustafa S Dunning KR Optical imaging detects metabolic signatures associated with oocyte quality Biol. Reproduct. 2022 107 1014 1025
Tan, T. C., Brown, H. M., Thompson, J. G., Mustafa, S. & Dunning, K. R. Optical imaging detects metabolic signatures associated with oocyte quality. Biol. Reproduct. 107, 1014–1025 (2022).
10. Morizet J Uva hyperspectral light-sheet microscopy for volumetric metabolic imaging: Application to preimplantation embryo development ACS Photonics 2023 10.1021/acsphotonics.3c00900 38145166
Morizet, J. et al. UVA hyperspectral light-sheet microscopy for volumetric metabolic imaging: application to preimplantation embryo development. ACS Photon. 10(12), 4177–4187. 10.1021/acsphotonics.3c00900 (2023).38145166 10.1021/acsphotonics.3c00900
11. Chow D Viewing early life without labels: Optical approaches for imaging the early embryo Biol Reproduct. 2024 10.1093/biolre/ioae062
Chow, D. J. et al. Viewing early life without labels: optical approaches for imaging the early embryo. Biol. Reproduct. 110(6), 1157–1174. 10.1093/biolre/ioae062 (2024).10.1093/biolre/ioae062
12. Shah JS Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (flim) detects differences in metabolic signatures between euploid and aneuploid human blastocysts Hum. Reproduct. 2022 37 400 410 10.1093/humrep/deac016
Shah, J. S. et al. Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (flim) detects differences in metabolic signatures between euploid and aneuploid human blastocysts. Hum. Reproduct. 37, 400–410 (2022).10.1093/humrep/deac016
13. Icha J Weber M Waters JC Norden C Phototoxicity in live fluorescence microscopy, and how to avoid it BioEssays 2017 39 1700003 10.1002/bies.201700003
Icha, J., Weber, M., Waters, J. C. & Norden, C. Phototoxicity in live fluorescence microscopy, and how to avoid it. BioEssays 39, 1700003 (2017).10.1002/bies.201700003
14. Tavakoli M Hossain P Malik RA Clinical applications of corneal confocal microscopy Clin. Ophthalmol. 2008 2 435 445 19668734
Tavakoli, M., Hossain, P. & Malik, R. A. Clinical applications of corneal confocal microscopy. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2, 435–445 (2008).19668734
15. Chiang JCB Roy M Kim J Markoulli M Krishnan AV In-vivo corneal confocal microscopy: Imaging analysis, biological insights and future directions Commun. Biol. 2023 6 652 10.1038/s42003-023-05005-8 37336941
Chiang, J. C. B., Roy, M., Kim, J., Markoulli, M. & Krishnan, A. V. In-vivo corneal confocal microscopy: Imaging analysis, biological insights and future directions. Commun. Biol. 6, 652 (2023).37336941 10.1038/s42003-023-05005-8
16. Taylor MD Roberts JR Hubbs AF Reasor MJ Antonini JM Quantitative image analysis of drug-induced lung fibrosis using laser scanning confocal microscopy Toxicol. Sci. 2002 67 295 302 10.1093/toxsci/67.2.295 12011489
Taylor, M. D., Roberts, J. R., Hubbs, A. F., Reasor, M. J. & Antonini, J. M. Quantitative image analysis of drug-induced lung fibrosis using laser scanning confocal microscopy. Toxicol. Sci. 67, 295–302 (2002).12011489 10.1093/toxsci/67.2.295
17. Zucker RM Whole insect and mammalian embryo imaging with confocal microscopy: Morphology and apoptosis Cytometry Part A J. Int. Soc. Analyt. Cytol. 2006 69 1143 1152 10.1002/cyto.a.20343
Zucker, R. M. Whole insect and mammalian embryo imaging with confocal microscopy: Morphology and apoptosis. Cytometry Part A J. Int. Soc. Analyt. Cytol. 69, 1143–1152 (2006).10.1002/cyto.a.20343
18. Heppert JK Comparative assessment of fluorescent proteins for in vivo imaging in an animal model system Mol. Biol. Cell 2016 27 3385 3394 10.1091/mbc.e16-01-0063 27385332
Heppert, J. K. et al. Comparative assessment of fluorescent proteins for in vivo imaging in an animal model system. Mol. Biol. Cell 27, 3385–3394 (2016).27385332 10.1091/mbc.e16-01-0063
19. Squirrell JM Wokosin DL White JG Bavister BD Long-term two-photon fluorescence imaging of mammalian embryos without compromising viability Nat. Biotechnol. 1999 17 763 767 10.1038/11698 10429240
Squirrell, J. M., Wokosin, D. L., White, J. G. & Bavister, B. D. Long-term two-photon fluorescence imaging of mammalian embryos without compromising viability. Nat. Biotechnol. 17, 763–767 (1999).10429240 10.1038/11698
20. Monteiro CAS Optical imaging of cleavage stage bovine embryos using hyperspectral and confocal approaches reveals metabolic differences between on-time and fast-developing embryos Theriogenology 2021 159 60 68 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.10.012 33113445
Monteiro, C. A. S. et al. Optical imaging of cleavage stage bovine embryos using hyperspectral and confocal approaches reveals metabolic differences between on-time and fast-developing embryos. Theriogenology 159, 60–68 (2021).33113445 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.10.012
21. Croce, A. C. & Bottiroli, G. Autofluorescence spectroscopy and imaging: A tool for biomedical research and diagnosis. Eur. J. Histochem. EJH 58, 320–337 (2014).
22. Reynaud EG Peychl J Huisken J Tomancak P Guide to light-sheet microscopy for adventurous biologists Nat. Methods 2015 12 30 4 10.1038/nmeth.3222 25549268
Reynaud, E. G., Peychl, J., Huisken, J. & Tomancak, P. Guide to light-sheet microscopy for adventurous biologists. Nat. Methods 12, 30–4. 10.1038/nmeth.3222 (2015).25549268 10.1038/nmeth.3222
23. Reynaud EG Kržič U Greger K Stelzer EH Light sheet-based fluorescence microscopy: More dimensions, more photons, and less photodamage HFSP J. 2008 2 266 275 10.2976/1.2974980 19404438
Reynaud, E. G., Kržič, U., Greger, K. & Stelzer, E. H. Light sheet-based fluorescence microscopy: More dimensions, more photons, and less photodamage. HFSP J. 2, 266–275. 10.2976/1.2974980 (2008).19404438 10.2976/1.2974980
24. Pang M Light-sheet fluorescence imaging charts the gastrula origin of vascular endothelial cells in early zebrafish embryos Cell Discov. 2020 6 74 10.1038/s41421-020-00204-7 33133634
Pang, M. et al. Light-sheet fluorescence imaging charts the gastrula origin of vascular endothelial cells in early zebrafish embryos. Cell Discov. 6, 74. 10.1038/s41421-020-00204-7 (2020).33133634 10.1038/s41421-020-00204-7
25. Chen BC Lattice light-sheet microscopy: Imaging molecules to embryos at high spatiotemporal resolution Science 2014 346 1257998 10.1126/science.1257998 25342811
Chen, B. C. et al. Lattice light-sheet microscopy: Imaging molecules to embryos at high spatiotemporal resolution. Science 346, 1257998. 10.1126/science.1257998 (2014).25342811 10.1126/science.1257998
26. Moretti B Muller NP Wappner M Grecco HE Compact and reflective light-sheet microscopy for long-term imaging of living embryos Appl. Opt. 2020 59 D89 D94 10.1364/AO.383026 32400629
Moretti, B., Muller, N. P., Wappner, M. & Grecco, H. E. Compact and reflective light-sheet microscopy for long-term imaging of living embryos. Appl. Opt. 59, D89–D94. 10.1364/AO.383026 (2020).32400629 10.1364/AO.383026
27. Memeo R Automatic imaging of drosophila embryos with light sheet fluorescence microscopy on chip J. Biophoton. 2021 14 e202000396 10.1002/jbio.202000396
Memeo, R. et al. Automatic imaging of drosophila embryos with light sheet fluorescence microscopy on chip. J. Biophoton. 14, e202000396. 10.1002/jbio.202000396 (2021).10.1002/jbio.202000396
28. Udan RS Piazza VG Hsu CW Hadjantonakis AK Dickinson ME Quantitative imaging of cell dynamics in mouse embryos using light-sheet microscopy Development 2014 141 4406 14 10.1242/dev.111021 25344073
Udan, R. S., Piazza, V. G., Hsu, C. W., Hadjantonakis, A. K. & Dickinson, M. E. Quantitative imaging of cell dynamics in mouse embryos using light-sheet microscopy. Development 141, 4406–14. 10.1242/dev.111021 (2014).25344073 10.1242/dev.111021
29. Mir M Single molecule imaging in live embryos using lattice light-sheet microscopy Methods Mol. Biol. 1814 541–559 2018 10.1007/978-1-4939-8591-3
Mir, M. et al. Single molecule imaging in live embryos using lattice light-sheet microscopy. Methods Mol. Biol. 541–559, 2018. 10.1007/978-1-4939-8591-3 (1814).10.1007/978-1-4939-8591-3
30. Strnad P Inverted light-sheet microscope for imaging mouse pre-implantation development Nat. Methods 2016 13 139 142 10.1038/nmeth.3690 26657559
Strnad, P. et al. Inverted light-sheet microscope for imaging mouse pre-implantation development. Nat. Methods 13, 139–142 (2016).26657559 10.1038/nmeth.3690
31. Tomer R Khairy K Keller PJ Shedding light on the system: Studying embryonic development with light sheet microscopy Curr. Opin. Genet. Develop. 2011 21 558 565 10.1016/j.gde.2011.07.003
Tomer, R., Khairy, K. & Keller, P. J. Shedding light on the system: Studying embryonic development with light sheet microscopy. Curr. Opin. Genet. Develop. 21, 558–565 (2011).10.1016/j.gde.2011.07.003
32. Keller PJ Schmidt AD Wittbrodt J Stelzer EH Reconstruction of zebrafish early embryonic development by scanned light sheet microscopy Science. 2008 322 1065 1069 10.1126/science.1162493 18845710
Keller, P. J., Schmidt, A. D., Wittbrodt, J. & Stelzer, E. H. Reconstruction of zebrafish early embryonic development by scanned light sheet microscopy. Science. 322, 1065–1069 (2008).18845710 10.1126/science.1162493
33. Khairy, K., Lemon, W. C., Amat, F. & Keller, P. J. Light sheet-based imaging and analysis of early embryogenesis in the fruit fly. Tissue Morphogenesis Methods Protoc. 1189, 79–97 (2015).
34. Reichmann, J., Eguren, M., Lin, Y., Schneider, I. & Ellenberg, J. Live imaging of cell division in preimplantation mouse embryos using inverted light-sheet microscopy. in Methods in Cell Biology, Vol. 145, 279–292 (Elsevier, 2018).
35. Udan RS Piazza VG Hsu C-W Hadjantonakis A-K Dickinson ME Quantitative imaging of cell dynamics in mouse embryos using light-sheet microscopy Development 2014 141 4406 4414 10.1242/dev.111021 25344073
Udan, R. S., Piazza, V. G., Hsu, C.-W., Hadjantonakis, A.-K. & Dickinson, M. E. Quantitative imaging of cell dynamics in mouse embryos using light-sheet microscopy. Development 141, 4406–4414 (2014).25344073 10.1242/dev.111021
36. Swoger, J., Pampaloni, F. & Stelzer, E. H. Light-sheet-based fluorescence microscopy for three-dimensional imaging of biological samples. Cold Spring Harb. Protoco. 2014, 1, pdb-top080168 (2014).
37. Weber M Huisken J Light sheet microscopy for real-time developmental biology Curr. Opin. Genet. Develop. 2011 21 566 572 10.1016/j.gde.2011.09.009
Weber, M. & Huisken, J. Light sheet microscopy for real-time developmental biology. Curr. Opin. Genet. Develop. 21, 566–572 (2011).10.1016/j.gde.2011.09.009
38. Magidson V Khodjakov A Circumventing photodamage in live-cell microscopy Methods Cell Biol. 2013 114 545 60 10.1016/B978-0-12-407761-4.00023-3 23931522
Magidson, V. & Khodjakov, A. Circumventing photodamage in live-cell microscopy. Methods Cell Biol. 114, 545–60. 10.1016/B978-0-12-407761-4.00023-3 (2013).23931522 10.1016/B978-0-12-407761-4.00023-3
39. Corsetti S Gunn-Moore F Dholakia K Light sheet fluorescence microscopy for neuroscience J. Neurosci. Methods 2019 319 16 27 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.07.011 30048674
Corsetti, S., Gunn-Moore, F. & Dholakia, K. Light sheet fluorescence microscopy for neuroscience. J. Neurosci. Methods 319, 16–27. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.07.011 (2019).30048674 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.07.011
40. Campugan CA The effect of discrete wavelengths of visible light on the developing murine embryo J. Assisted Reproduct. Genet. 2022 39 1825 1837 10.1007/s10815-022-02555-4
Campugan, C. A. et al. The effect of discrete wavelengths of visible light on the developing murine embryo. J. Assisted Reproduct. Genet. 39, 1825–1837. 10.1007/s10815-022-02555-4 (2022).10.1007/s10815-022-02555-4
41. Musson R Gąsior Ł Bisogno S Ptak GE Dna damage in preimplantation embryos and gametes: Specification, clinical relevance and repair strategies Hum. Reproduct. Update 2022 28 376 399 10.1093/humupd/dmab046
Musson, R., Gąsior, Ł, Bisogno, S. & Ptak, G. E. Dna damage in preimplantation embryos and gametes: Specification, clinical relevance and repair strategies. Hum. Reproduct. Update 28, 376–399. 10.1093/humupd/dmab046 (2022).10.1093/humupd/dmab046
42. Khokhlova EV Fesenko ZS Sopova JV Leonova EI Features of DNA repair in the early stages of mammalian embryonic development Genes 2020 11 1138 10.3390/genes11101138 32992616
Khokhlova, E. V., Fesenko, Z. S., Sopova, J. V. & Leonova, E. I. Features of DNA repair in the early stages of mammalian embryonic development. Genes 11, 1138. 10.3390/genes11101138 (2020).32992616 10.3390/genes11101138
43. Mah LJ El-Osta A Karagiannis TC gammah2ax: A sensitive molecular marker of DNA damage and repair Leukemia 2010 24 679 86 10.1038/leu.2010.6 20130602
Mah, L. J., El-Osta, A. & Karagiannis, T. C. gammah2ax: A sensitive molecular marker of DNA damage and repair. Leukemia 24, 679–86. 10.1038/leu.2010.6 (2010).20130602 10.1038/leu.2010.6
44. Lopez KE Bouchier-Hayes L Lethal and non-lethal functions of caspases in the DNA damage response Cells. 2022 10.3390/cells11121887 36428964
Lopez, K. E. & Bouchier-Hayes, L. Lethal and non-lethal functions of caspases in the DNA damage response. Cells.[SPACE]10.3390/cells11121887 (2022).36428964 10.3390/cells11121887
45. Vettenburg T Light-sheet microscopy using an airy beam Nat. Methods 2014 11 541 544 10.1038/nmeth.2922 24705473
Vettenburg, T. et al. Light-sheet microscopy using an airy beam. Nat. Methods 11, 541–544 (2014).24705473 10.1038/nmeth.2922
46. Yang Z A compact airy beam light sheet microscope with a tilted cylindrical lens Biomed. Opt. Express 2014 5 3434 3442 10.1364/BOE.5.003434 25360362
Yang, Z. et al. A compact airy beam light sheet microscope with a tilted cylindrical lens. Biomed. Opt. Express 5, 3434–3442 (2014).25360362 10.1364/BOE.5.003434
47. Cheng X Ferrell JE Jr Apoptosis propagates through the cytoplasm as trigger waves Science 2018 361 607 612 10.1126/science.aah4065 30093599
Cheng, X. & Ferrell, J. E. Jr. Apoptosis propagates through the cytoplasm as trigger waves. Science 361, 607–612 (2018).30093599 10.1126/science.aah4065
48. Bognar Z The effect of light exposure on the cleavage rate and implantation capacity of preimplantation murine embryos J. Reproduct. Immunol. 2019 132 21 28 10.1016/j.jri.2019.02.003
Bognar, Z. et al. The effect of light exposure on the cleavage rate and implantation capacity of preimplantation murine embryos. J. Reproduct. Immunol. 132, 21–28. 10.1016/j.jri.2019.02.003 (2019).10.1016/j.jri.2019.02.003
49. Pomeroy KO Reed ML The effect of light on embryos and embryo culture J. Reproduct. Stem Cell Biotechnol. 2012 3 46 54 10.1177/205891581200300203
Pomeroy, K. O. & Reed, M. L. The effect of light on embryos and embryo culture. J. Reproduct. Stem Cell Biotechnol. 3, 46–54 (2012).10.1177/205891581200300203
50. Rogakou E Pilch D Orr A Ivanova V Bonner W Dna double-stranded breaks induce histone h2ax phosphorylation on serine 139 J. Biol. Chem. 1998 273 5858 5868 10.1074/jbc.273.10.5858 9488723
Rogakou, E., Pilch, D., Orr, A., Ivanova, V. & Bonner, W. Dna double-stranded breaks induce histone h2ax phosphorylation on serine 139. J. Biol. Chem. 273, 5858–5868 (1998).9488723 10.1074/jbc.273.10.5858
51. Yordanov S Single-objective high-resolution confocal light sheet fluorescence microscopy for standard biological sample geometries Biomed. Opt. Express 2021 12 3372 3391 10.1364/BOE.420788 34221666
Yordanov, S. et al. Single-objective high-resolution confocal light sheet fluorescence microscopy for standard biological sample geometries. Biomed. Opt. Express 12, 3372–3391 (2021).34221666 10.1364/BOE.420788
52. Jemielita M Taormina MJ DeLaurier A Kimmel CB Parthasarathy R Comparing phototoxicity during the development of a zebrafish craniofacial bone using confocal and light sheet fluorescence microscopy techniques J. Biophoton. 2013 6 920 928 10.1002/jbio.201200144
Jemielita, M., Taormina, M. J., DeLaurier, A., Kimmel, C. B. & Parthasarathy, R. Comparing phototoxicity during the development of a zebrafish craniofacial bone using confocal and light sheet fluorescence microscopy techniques. J. Biophoton. 6, 920–928 (2013).10.1002/jbio.201200144
53. Jennifer, C. et al. Phototoxicity in live fluorescence microscopy, and how to avoid it. BioEssays. 39, 1–15 (2017).
54. Yang B Epi-illumination spim for volumetric imaging with high spatial-temporal resolution Nat. Methods 2019 16 501 504 10.1038/s41592-019-0401-3 31061492
Yang, B. et al. Epi-illumination spim for volumetric imaging with high spatial-temporal resolution. Nat. Methods 16, 501–504 (2019).31061492 10.1038/s41592-019-0401-3
55. Karu, T. Stimulation of metabolic processes by low-intensity visible light: A scientific basis for biostimulation. in Laser Applications in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 5, 1–47 (Springer, 1991).
56. Nakayama E Blue laser irradiation decreases the ATP level in mouse skin and increases the production of superoxide anion and hypochlorous acid in mouse fibroblasts Biology 2022 11 301 10.3390/biology11020301 35205166
Nakayama, E. et al. Blue laser irradiation decreases the ATP level in mouse skin and increases the production of superoxide anion and hypochlorous acid in mouse fibroblasts. Biology 11, 301 (2022).35205166 10.3390/biology11020301
57. Surre J Strong increase in the autofluorescence of cells signals struggle for survival Sci. Rep. 2018 8 12088 10.1038/s41598-018-30623-2 30108248
Surre, J. et al. Strong increase in the autofluorescence of cells signals struggle for survival. Sci. Rep. 8, 12088 (2018).30108248 10.1038/s41598-018-30623-2
58. Clendenon SG Young PA Ferkowicz M Phillips C Dunn KW Deep tissue fluorescent imaging in scattering specimens using confocal microscopy Microsc. Microanal. 2011 17 614 617 10.1017/S1431927611000535 21729357
Clendenon, S. G., Young, P. A., Ferkowicz, M., Phillips, C. & Dunn, K. W. Deep tissue fluorescent imaging in scattering specimens using confocal microscopy. Microsc. Microanal. 17, 614–617 (2011).21729357 10.1017/S1431927611000535
59. Ryu Y Comparison of light-sheet fluorescence microscopy and fast-confocal microscopy for three-dimensional imaging of cleared mouse brain Methods Protocols 2023 6 108 10.3390/mps6060108 37987355
Ryu, Y. et al. Comparison of light-sheet fluorescence microscopy and fast-confocal microscopy for three-dimensional imaging of cleared mouse brain. Methods Protocols 6, 108 (2023).37987355 10.3390/mps6060108
60. Haslehurst P Yang Z Dholakia K Emptage N Fast volume-scanning light sheet microscopy reveals transient neuronal events Biomed. Opt. Express 2018 9 2154 2167 10.1364/BOE.9.002154 29760977
Haslehurst, P., Yang, Z., Dholakia, K. & Emptage, N. Fast volume-scanning light sheet microscopy reveals transient neuronal events. Biomed. Opt. Express 9, 2154–2167. 10.1364/BOE.9.002154 (2018).29760977 10.1364/BOE.9.002154
61. Dwapanyin GO Investigation of refractive index dynamics during in vitro embryo development using off-axis digital holographic microscopy Biomed. Opt. Express 2023 14 3327 3342 10.1364/BOE.492292 37497510
Dwapanyin, G. O. et al. Investigation of refractive index dynamics during in vitro embryo development using off-axis digital holographic microscopy. Biomed. Opt. Express 14, 3327–3342 (2023).37497510 10.1364/BOE.492292
62. Domingo-Muelas A Human embryo live imaging reveals nuclear DNA shedding during blastocyst expansion and biopsy Cell 2023 186 3166 3181 10.1016/j.cell.2023.06.003 37413989
Domingo-Muelas, A. et al. Human embryo live imaging reveals nuclear DNA shedding during blastocyst expansion and biopsy. Cell 186, 3166–3181 (2023).37413989 10.1016/j.cell.2023.06.003
63. Favreau PF Label-free redox imaging of patient-derived organoids using selective plane illumination microscopy Biomed. Opt. Express 2020 11 2591 2606 10.1364/BOE.389164 32499946
Favreau, P. F. et al. Label-free redox imaging of patient-derived organoids using selective plane illumination microscopy. Biomed. Opt. Express 11, 2591–2606. 10.1364/BOE.389164 (2020).32499946 10.1364/BOE.389164
64. Gasparoli FM Escobet-Montalbán A Early J Bruce GD Dholakia K Is laser repetition rate important for two-photon light sheet microscopy? OSA Continuum 2020 3 2935 2942 10.1364/OSAC.405369
Gasparoli, F. M., Escobet-Montalbán, A., Early, J., Bruce, G. D. & Dholakia, K. Is laser repetition rate important for two-photon light sheet microscopy?. OSA Continuum 3, 2935–2942 (2020).10.1364/OSAC.405369
65. Debarre, D., Olivier, N., Supatto, W. & Beaurepaire, E. Mitigating phototoxicity during multiphoton microscopy of live drosophila embryos in the 1.0–1.2 µm wavelength range. PLoS One 9, e104250 (2014).
66. Corsetti S Widefield light sheet microscopy using an airy beam combined with deep-learning super-resolution OSA Continuum 2020 3 1068 1083 10.1364/OSAC.391644
Corsetti, S. et al. Widefield light sheet microscopy using an airy beam combined with deep-learning super-resolution. OSA Continuum 3, 1068–1083. 10.1364/OSAC.391644 (2020).10.1364/OSAC.391644
67. Kilkenny C Browne WJ Cuthill IC Emerson M Altman DG Improving bioscience research reporting: The arrive guidelines for reporting animal research J. Pharmacol. Pharmacotherap. 2010 1 94 99 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M. & Altman, D. G. Improving bioscience research reporting: The arrive guidelines for reporting animal research. J. Pharmacol. Pharmacotherap. 1, 94–99. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412 (2010).10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412
68. Muster B Rapp A Cardoso MC Systematic analysis of DNA damage induction and DNA repair pathway activation by continuous wave visible light laser micro-irradiation AIMS Genet. 2017 4 047 068 10.3934/genet.2017.1.47
Muster, B., Rapp, A. & Cardoso, M. C. Systematic analysis of DNA damage induction and DNA repair pathway activation by continuous wave visible light laser micro-irradiation. AIMS Genet. 4, 047–068. 10.3934/genet.2017.1.47 (2017).10.3934/genet.2017.1.47
