The Age of Imag­ing

by Elio

Not so long ago, it would have seemed im­plau­si­ble that bi­ol­ogy would re­turn to its ori­gins as a vi­sual sci­ence. Some would have con­sid­ered this a re­gres­sion to the days when bi­ol­o­gists were pretty much con­fined to study­ing just what they could see, such as the shapes of or­gan­isms and their tis­sues. Back then, they fo­cused on re­fin­ing what Pliny had ob­served with his bare eyes, what Hooke and Leeuwen­hoek saw un­der the micro­scope. The method­olog­i­cal lines of at­tack were dra­mat­i­cally redirect­ed from the vi­sual by the rev­o­lu­tion­ary dis­cov­er­ies of the sec­ond half of the last cen­tury. Bio­chem­istry, ge­net­ics, mol­e­c­u­lar bi­ol­ogy – none of them re­lied pri­mar­ily on vi­sualizing the struc­ture of ob­jects. For some time, do­ing mor­phol­ogy was sus­pect and, in some quar­ters, even us­ing a mi­cro­scope was equated with do­ing old-fash­ioned sci­ence.

Im­age cour­tesy of Bib­liOdyssey

How bi­ol­ogy has (once again) changed!

Some of the most fun­da­men­tal work done now once again in­volves see­ing shapes and forms. Granted, ge­nomics and its ‑om­i­cal kin­folk can be done with one's eyes closed (but with one's mind open). How­ever, if you look no far­ther, you would miss much of the ex­cite­ment of the day. Nowa­days, mind-blow­ing in­sights come from see­ing with your own eyes.

Bi­o­log­i­cal imag­ing to­day starts with the very small, at the level of mol­e­cules – a field where splen­did ad­vances are be­ing made. A new name, Struc­tural Bi­ol­ogy, was awarded to this sort of study. In my grad­u­ate stu­dent years over half a cen­tury ago, only the rare vi­sion­ary pre­dicted that we would read­ily "see" how an en­zyme works or how macro­mol­e­cules in­ter­act with mol­e­cules large and small! These are grand achieve­ments in­deed. It gets bet­ter: sin­gle mol­e­cule imag­ing meth­ods al­low us to vi­su­al­ize the tiny move­ments made and the forces gen­er­ated by pro­teins or riboso­mes. One can now "see" in real time poly­merases poly­mer­iz­ing and riboso­mes trans­lat­ing.

Mov­ing up a bit in mag­ni­tude, mi­croscopy can also claim amaz­ing de­vel­op­ments. In my days, it was be­lieved that the op­ti­cal mi­croscope had reached its phys­i­cal lim­its and that the elec­tron mi­croscope had se­vere lim­i­ta­tions. Re­cent progress on both these fronts con­tin­ues at a stun­ning pace. Flu­o­res­cence tech­niques, in­clud­ing meth­ods to clean up their sig­nals, per­mit us to see sin­gle mol­e­cules in ac­tion at an ex­cep­tional de­gree of res­o­lu­tion, of­ten in liv­ing cells. And the sig­nals can even be quan­ti­tated. On the hori­zon are other tech­niques un­der de­vel­op­ment that hold promise for even greater res­o­lu­tion.

Newer on the scene is the cou­pling of cry­oto­mog­ra­phy with the elec­tron mi­cro­scope, a tech­nique that per­mits one to vi­su­al­ize the in­te­rior of un­fixed whole cells. In a sense, this lets one crawl in­side a rel­a­tively un­treated cell, take a look around, and see what there is to see. I am re­minded of an old pre­lim exam ques­tion that I had used to tor­ment grad­u­ate stu­dents: If you could get to be small enough to fit in­side a bac­terium, what would you see? We thought this a "cool" ques­tion that par­al­leled the sci­ence fic­tion movie, Fan­tas­tic Voy­age, where a sub­ma­rine with crew is miniatur­ized to 1 μm in length and thus able to travel the blood­stream of its in­ven­tor to de­stroy a blood clot in his brain. How about that! My ques­tion is no longer in the realm of sci­ence fic­tion! Al­though the tech­nique doesn't minia­tur­ize the ex­per­i­menter, the re­sult is the same: one can pre­tend to see what's in­side a bac­terium. The caveat in this state­ment is due to sev­eral fac­tors: the cells have to be quite thin (al­though most prokary­otes in na­ture prob­a­bly qual­ify); not all the struc­tural con­stituents can be re­solved with the same clar­ity; and the high volt­age elec­tron beam used prob­a­bly in­tro­duces dis­tor­tions. Still, crawl­ing in­side a bac­terium is, by any stan­dard, a mag­nif­i­cent achieve­ment. So, what is there to see in­side a "sim­ple" bac­terium? This will be the topic for a fu­ture post­ing.

The Age of Imag­ing is just be­gin­ning. It's hard to pre­dict where it will lead, as the lim­its seem to con­stantly re­cede. Let's go for broke: some­day we should be able to en­joy movies that show what goes on in­side liv­ing cells at the res­o­lu­tion of the elec­tron mi­cro­scope. Maybe even talkies?

 

Other Posts

  • Of Terms in Bi­ol­ogy: Metage­nomic Bin­ning

    by Christoph Weigel — Summer's al­most gone. Imag­ine you're strolling along the shores of a lake en­joy­ing nature's col­ors dur­ing sun­set. Sparkle catches your eyes where the lake lan­guidly laps against the shore. You start pon­der­ing whether mi­crobes – and if so which ones, and how many dif­fer­ent – cause these glis­ten­ing, some­what slimy foam flakes at the shore. Sure enough, you take sam­ples!

  • Antarctica's Deep Lake

    A Frigid Home for Stead­fast Ar­chaea by Elio — Some time ago, we asked this Tal­mu­dic Ques­tion: Can you think of a place on Earth where there is free wa­ter but no mi­crobes? (A ster­ile flask of nu­tri­ent broth in a lab, the in­sides of the body, or an IV bag in a hos­pi­tal don't count.) Some­one an­swered that per­haps…

  • Small Friends of Fungi

    by Bob Mesi­bov — If you stud­ied the tra­di­tional sort of bi­ol­ogy, you're prob­a­bly car­ry­ing around an un­for­tu­nate prej­u­dice. You see ter­res­trial habi­tats as a sim­pli­fied nu­tri­ents-and-en­ergy pyra­mid. At the bot­tom are green plants, feed­ing on sun­light, car­bon diox­ide and soil wa­ter and min­er­als. Next layer up on the pyra­mid is...

  • Fol­low Your Nose...

    ...To­wards More Eco­log­i­cal An­timi­cro­bial Ther­a­pies
    by Roberto — The re­mark­able trans­for­ma­tion in the con­trol of in­fec­tious dis­eases by an­tibi­otics is one of the glo­ri­ous sto­ries in mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy. But now, al­most in­sep­a­ra­ble from their dis­cov­ery and ap­pli­ca­tion, is its nasty se­quel, the rapid evo­lu­tion of an­tibi­otic re­sis­tance. We con­tin­u­ally read re­ports of the dire pub­lic health sit­u­a­tion that we may...

  • The Col­ors of the Mi­cro­bial Rain­bow

    by Gemma Reguera — Our ap­pre­ci­a­tion of the col­ors of na­ture is lim­ited by the nar­row wave­lengths of the elec­tro­mag­netic spec­trum that our eyes can de­tect. This por­tion of the elec­tro­mag­netic spec­trum be­tween 390 and 750 nm is what we re­fer to as the vis­i­ble (vis) light or, sim­ply, light. We can­not see be­low…

  • Virus? ...sim­ply a piece of bad news wrapped up in pro­tein.

    by Christoph — In the mid­dle of the first ma­jor pan­demic of my life­time I feel the need, as a mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gist, to make oc­ca­sional con­tri­bu­tions that may help in­di­vid­u­als and so­ci­ety ap­proach the pan­demic in a rea­son­ably in­formed way. To­day, I'd like to con­tribute with a small dose of 'mi­cro­bial lit­er­acy,' as called for by Ken Tim­mis and col­leagues...

5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
18 years ago

Great overview post, Elio! I think the in­cred­i­ble bi­o­log­i­cal (and as­tro­nom­i­cal) im­ages avail­able these days help to keep at least some sec­tors of the gen­eral pub­lic in­ter­ested in sci­ence, some­thing we need in this era of ide­o­log­i­cally-in­spired and re­gres­sive anti-sci­ence.

Robert Murray
18 years ago

Yes, Elio, you are right to em­pha­sise the im­por­tance of "see­ing" to the cur­rent cell bi­ol­ogy re­search. I would add an item of em­pha­sis. The re­ally dra­matic part has been and is the avail­ablil­ity of spe­cific flu­o­res­cent mark­ers in the com­pany of clever mon­o­clonal an­ti­bod­ies to­gether with a choice of flu­o­resc­ing spec­tra, so that sev­eral ques­tions can be at­tacked in one ex­per­i­ment. As some one said half a cen­tury ago (Was it Brad­bury ?): "The mi­cro­scope is here to stay". Mod­ern de­vel­op­ments in elec­tron-mi­croscopy are nearly equally im­pres­sive. You have writ­ten a neat re­view of the ba­sis for cur­rent work — now what?

Autumn Cochrane
18 years ago

Let's go for su­per, dead-broke (if such a thing ex­ists)! I pre­dict that one day, we will be able to see movies of what hap­pens bi­o­log­i­cally within cells at the ATOMIC level! There's this "new" type of mi­croscopy, atomic force mi­croscopy (AFM)and scan­ning-tun­nel­ing mi­croscopy (STM). It gives near-atomic de­tail of pro­teins and such, and (what's the coolest, best thing) the spec­i­men can be alive while be­ing viewed! So, for me, I think: "For­get about SEM & TEM! This is a way bet­ter deal!"
The sad thing: it's very ex­pen­sive and, cur­rently, re­ally only be­ing used in the syn­the­sis of su­per-small nan­otech­nol­ogy! I feel it's be­ing used for the com­pletely wrong pur­pose.

Indrani Roy
14 years ago

Af­ter all See­ing is Be­liev­ing.

Jim Vandiver
14 years ago

The last pod­cast from The Naked Sci­en­tists starts with a nice dis­cus­sion about con­fo­cal mi­croscopy fol­lowed by an­other seg­ment about lens-less imag­ing based on how the eye sees float­ing de­bris that ap­pears in front of the retina: http://www.thenakedscientists.com . I was not aware that stop-ac­tion pho­tog­ra­phy of liv­ing sys­tems at one-minute in­ter­vals us­ing con­fo­cal mi­croscopy was pos­si­ble.