A Stochastic Model for Electron Multiplication Charge-Coupled Devices - From Theory to Practice

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Hirsch, Michael ^a   Wareham, Richard J ^b   Martin Fernandez, Marisa L ^a   Hobson, Michael P ^c   Rolfe, Daniel J ^a  

^a Harwell Science and Innovation Campus   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CALCULATION; CALIBRATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRON MULTIPLICATION CHARGE COUPLED DEVICE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGING SYSTEM; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; STOCHASTIC MODEL; VALIDITY;

BAYES THEOREM; CALIBRATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ELECTRONS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FLUORESCENCE; HUMANS; MICROSCOPY, FLUORESCENCE; OPTICAL IMAGING; PHOTONS;

EID: 84873115730     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053671     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ober RJ, Ram S, Ward ES, (2004) Localization Accuracy in Single-Molecule Microscopy. Biophys J 86: 1185-1200.
2. Sergé A, Bertaux N, Rigneault H, Marguet D, (2008) Dynamic multiple-target tracing to probe spatiotemporal cartography of cell membranes. Nat Methods 5: 687-94.
3. Abraham AV, Ram S, Chao J, Ward ES, Ober RJ, (2009) Quantitative study of single molecule location estimation techniques. Opt Express 17: 23352-23373.
4. Hughes J, Fricks J, Hancock W, (2010) Likelihood inference for particle location in fluorescence microscopy. Ann Appl Stat 4: 830-848.
5. Huang F, Schwartz SL, Byars JM, Lidke Ka, (2011) Simultaneous multiple-emitter fitting for single molecule super-resolution imaging. Biomed Opt Express 2: 1377-93.
6. Diakonis P, Efron B (1983) Computer-intensive methods in statistics. Sci Am 248.
7. Daigle O, Carignan C, Gach JL, Guillaume C, Lessard S, et al. (2009) Extreme faint flux imaging with an EMCCD. Proc SPIE 5499.
8. Tulloch S (2004) Photon counting and fast photometry with L3 CCDs. Proc SPIE 5492.
9. Zhang L, Neves L, Lundeen JS, Walmsley IA (2009) A characterization of the single-photon sensitivity of an electron multiplying charge-coupled device. J Phys B At Mol Opt Phys 42.
10. Basden AG, Haniff CA, Mackay CD (2003) Photon counting strategies with low-light-level CCDs. Mon Not R Astron Soc 345.
11. Tubbs RN (2004) Lucky exposures: Diffraction limited astronomical imaging through the atmosphere. Observatory 124.
12. Robbins MS, Hadwen BJ (2003) The noise performance of electron multiplying charge-coupled devices. IEEE Trans Electron Devices 50.
13. Plakhotnik T, Chennu A, Zvyagin AV, (2006) Statistics of single-electron signals in electronmultiplying charge-coupled devices. IEEE Trans Electron Devices 53: 618-622.
14. Hughes J, Fricks J, Hancock W (2010) Likelihood inference for particle location in fluorescence microscopy. Ann Appl Stat 4.
15. Korevaar MA, Goorden MC, Heemskerk JW, Beekman FJ, (2011) Maximum-likelihood scintillation detection for em-ccd based gamma cameras. Phys Med Biol 56: 4785-48001.
16. Rolfe DJ, McLachlan CI, Hirsch M, Needham SR, Tynan CJ, et al. (2011) Automated multidimensional single molecule fluorescence microscopy feature detection and tracking. Eur Biophys J 40: 1167-1186.
17. Daigle O, Gach JL, Guillaume C, Carignan C, Balard P, et al. (2004) L3CCD results in pure photon counting mode. Proc SPIE 5499.
18. Barret HH, HunterWC, Miller BW, Moore SK, Chen Y, et al. (2009) Maximum-likelihood methods for processing signals from gamma-ray detectors. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 56: 725.
19. Mortensen KI, Churchman LS, Spudich JA, Flyvbjerg H (2010) Optimized localization analysis for single-molecule tracking and super-resolution microscopy. Nat Methods 7.
20. Andor Technology. Unravelling Sensitivity, Signal to Noise and Dynamic Range - EMCCD vs CCD. Available: http://www.emccd.com/what-is-emccd/unraveling-sensitivity/. Accessed 2012 Jul 4.
21. Hamamatsu Photonics. Electron Multiplying Charge-Coupled Devices (EMCCDs). Available: http://learn.hamamatsu.com/articles/emccds.html. Accessed 2012 Jul 4.
22. Mullikin J, Vliet LV, Netten H, Boddeke F, der Feltz GV, et al. (1994) Methods for CCD camera characterization. Proc SPIE 2173.
23. Ulbrich MH, Isacoff EY, (2007) Subunit counting in membrane-bound proteins. Nat Methods 4: 319-321.
24. Clarke DT, Botchway SW, Coles BC, Needham SR, Roberts SK, et al. (2011) Optics clustered to output unique solutions: A multi-laser facility for combined single molecule and ensemble microscopy. Rev Sci Instrum 83.
25. Andor Technology. Longevity in EMCCDs. Available: http://www.andor.com/pdfs/longevity-in-emccds.pdf. Accessed 2012 Jul 4.
26. Sharma D (2006) EMCCD camera technology advances. New EMCCD camera offers 16-bit quantitative stability for ratiometric imaging. Imaging & Microscopy 4.
27. O'Grady A (2006) A comparison of EMCCD, CCD and emerging technologies optimized for low light spectroscopy applications. In: Proc SPIE. SPIE, volume 6093, 60930S-60930S-9.
28. e2v technologies CCD97-00 Back Illuminated 2-Phase IMO Series Electron Multiplying CCD Sensor. Available: http://www.e2v.com/products-and-services/high-performance-imaging-solutions/imaging-solutions-cmos-ccd-emccd/datasheets/. Accessed 2012 Jul 4.
29. Feroz F, Hobson MP, Bridges M (2009) MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics. Mon Not R Astron Soc 398.