Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeTexas Red filter
Posted by SteffenDietzel on 15 Dec 2021 at 09:16 GMT
Citation from: Cell Painting, a high-content image-based assay for morphological profiling using multiplexed fluorescent dyes. Mark-Anthony Bray, Shantanu Singh, Han Han, Chadwick T Davis, Blake Borgeson, Cathy Hartland, Maria Kost-Alimova, Sigrun M Gustafsdottir, Christopher C Gibson & Anne E Carpenter. Nature Protocols volume 11, pages 1757–1774 (2016) (Legend to Table 1)
"In Gustafsdottir et al., the TexasRed filter was incorrectly listed as having excitation/emission at 562/642 nm; the actual numbers are 562/624 nm."
RE: Texas Red filter
AnneCarpenter replied to SteffenDietzel on 22 Dec 2021 at 17:05 GMT
Indeed, thank you for pointing out the typo. The microscope's TexasRed filter is listed as excitation/emission (562/642 nm) when it is actually (562/624 nm). This was confirmed with the screening center that performed the microscopy described in the paper.