Optical sectioning for reflection interference microscopy: quantitative imaging at soft interfaces

preprint OA: gold CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-03 · read from full text

This paper develops two optical sectioning approaches—line confocal detection and structured illumination microscopy—to reduce spurious background reflections in reflection interference contrast microscopy (RICM), which is used for quantitative imaging of thin films and cell–substrate interactions. Using conventional RICM-compatible implementations, the authors experimentally evaluate improvements in image quality and demonstrate quantitative imaging across complex biological and biomimetic samples, including cellular membranes, thin organic films, and surface biofunctionalization. A major caveat is that the methods require choosing a trade-off between optical sectioning effectiveness and signal-to-noise ratio, and the paper provides guidelines for that arbitration rather than a universally optimal setting. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Reflection Interference Contrast Microscopy (RICM, also known as interference reflection microscopy) and related techniques have become of wide interest to the biophysical, soft matter and biochemistry communities owing to their exquisite sensitivity for characterising thin films or individual nanoscopic objects adsorbed onto surfaces, or for monitoring cell-substrate interactions. Over the recent years, striking progresses have been made to improve the sensitivity and the quantitative analysis of RICM. Its use in more complex environments, with spurious reflections stemming from a variety of structures in the sample, remains however challenging. In this paper, we demonstrate two optical sectioning methods that effectively reduce such background and can be readily implemented in a conventional RICM setup: line confocal detection, and structured illumination microscopy. We characterise experimentally the benefits to image quality and demonstrate the use of the methods for quantitative imaging of complex biological and biomimetic samples: cellular membranes, thin organic films, surface biofunctionalization. We then discuss the benefits of each method and provide guidelines to arbitrate between sectioning and signal-to-noise ratio. Finally, we provide a detailed description of our experimental setup and a home-written image acquisition and processing software that should allow the interested reader to duplicate such a setup on a home-built or commercial microscope.
Full text 1,669 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Reflection Interference Contrast Microscopy (RICM, also known as interference reflection microscopy) and related techniques have become of wide interest to the biophysical, soft matter and biochemistry communities owing to their exquisite sensitivity for characterising thin films or individual nanoscopic objects adsorbed onto surfaces, or for monitoring cell-substrate interactions. Over the recent years, striking progresses have been made to improve the sensitivity and the quantitative analysis of RICM. Its use in more complex environments, with spurious reflections stemming from a variety of structures in the sample, remains however challenging. In this paper, we demonstrate two optical sectioning methods that effectively reduce such background and can be readily implemented in a conventional RICM setup: line confocal detection, and structured illumination microscopy. We characterise experimentally the benefits to image quality and demonstrate the use of the methods for quantitative imaging of complex biological and biomimetic samples: cellular membranes, thin organic films, surface biofunctionalization. We then discuss the benefits of each method and provide guidelines to arbitrate between sectioning and signal-to-noise ratio. Finally, we provide a detailed description of our experimental setup and a home-written image acquisition and processing software that should allow the interested reader to duplicate such a setup on a home-built or commercial microscope. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes correction of typos, change in the section order, corrections to the acknowledgements

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-21T05:10:58.409756+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0