# Talk:Two-photon excitation microscopy

,

WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

## Extent of resolution improvement

I think the article would benefit if it's easy to add an example of the improvement of resolution, particularly z-direction over single-photon excitation, and comparison with confocal and other techniques.--Skoch3 03:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't believe that z-resolution with multiphoton microscopy is improved. it should be somewhat worse, given that the the z-resolution is inversely related to the excitation wavelength. i believe it's roughly on the order of being 2x worse in the z-axis. i forget the details, but i believe you're correct in that this may be an important point to note.--cpschultz 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

the maximum z-resolution of a 2-photon is on the order of ~0.7 um, if memory serves... the thing that makes 2-photon resolution better is that there is virtually no excitation outside a very small volume, in 1-photon imaging, a much larger volume gets exited in the z because of scattering, etc... IlyaV (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All of you are correct. The z-resolution in microscopy is depending on the focal volume of the illumination and the possibility to select the plane of interest in the "observation beam". While in confocal laser scanning microscopy the resolution is given almost exclusively by the latter (i.e. by the pinhole size), in 2p microscopy the focal volume determines the resolution. As a first estimate you can calculate the Rayleigh range of the beam of interest (emission in confocal, excitation in 2p), which is given by

${\displaystyle z_{\mathrm {R} }={\frac {\lambda }{\pi NA^{2}}}}$

In confocal microscopy, the emission wavelength is between 500 and 600nm (roughly), while in 2p, the excitation happens with 800 to 1000nm. So even if you assume that not the whole focal volume is excited in 2p microscopy, you still end up with about the same z-resolution (that is about 320 nm for a standard 1.0NA water immersion objective; twice the Rayleigh range). If you assume the whole focal volume is excited (over the complete Rayleigh range), z-resolution (and actually the lateral resolution as well) is worse in 2p than in confocal microscopy. Donik (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

From the article,

The purpose of employing the two-photon effect is ... the resolution along the z dimension is improved, allowing for thin optical sections to be cut. ... the probability for fluorescent ... quadratically with the excitation intensity. ... Effectively, excitation is restricted to the tiny focal volume (~1 femtoliter), resulting in a high degree of rejection of out-of-focus objects.

Is this a mistake, i.e., isn't the idea to allow the sample to be cut into thicker sections without the usual associated sacrifice of resolving contrast? Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

## energy conservation

how can two photons of 1/2E add up to be slightly more than E? should include explanation of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.67.55 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

when a fluorophore is excited, part of the energy is dissipated as heat (ie, a phonon is emitted,) as such, the energy of the emitted photon is less than the energy of the two photons. IlyaV (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

## Images

I presume it is a mistake when the included figure states PTM. This should probably be changed to PMT (PhotoMultiPlier)?

[2014.03.17_20:55] Yes, the figure should indicate emission collection via photomultiplier tubes (PMTs).

While working on de:Multiphotonenmikroskop, I uploaded the following image files to commons, all from the same article. Just in case somebody feels like to work them into the English version as well... --Dietzel65 (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

## Two verses multi

This article states that: "The two-photon excitation microscope is a special variant of the multiphoton fluorescence microscope." I am under the impression that two photon and multi photon are interchangeable terms with identical meanings and that one is not actually a "variant" of the other at all. I believe that the latter was used to avoid a trademark infringement. 2.220.208.183 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMSINNOV (talkcontribs) 23:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

## References

Reference 9 and 12 are duplicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.208.183 (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks, benmoore 09:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)