I´ve always used inverted microscopes to follow our cell cultures. I wanted to know if a binocular loupe can be used for simple things such as evaluating plate confluence, cell adherence or de-attachment by trypsin or other routine procedures. I have access to an inverted microscope in another room for detail watching and photograph, but I was wondering if I could avoid buying one for simple routine procedures.
I wanted to know if anyone has tried that or if there is an intermediate option between binocular loupe and inverted microscopes.
It depends on your cell line. In general, the problem with looking at the cells is that they are transparent. However, in some cases, when the surface of the cell is elevated high enough from the surface, you would be able to observe it with the loupe, provided it has sufficient "resolution".
Cell detachment and attachment would be okay, checking general confluency may also be okay but cell counting could be hard - depends on how precise you wanna be.
Thank you for your answers! Cells are fibroblast, so size will not be a problem. I've seen several loupes that have 40X magnification and some can even be used at 60 or 80X, I was thinking of those to replace an inverted microscope. My doubt is actually the one you both refer to, the lack of phase contrast. I do not know if I will be able to see cell limits without phase contrast.
Not impossible, but the better choice is to use an inverted microscope
Because then you can choose the right lens and see the cells at the right resolution.
Diego Raffo That's right, you may have trouble viewing the cells. It's up to you. I wouldn't do it because... well, you'll just curse every time and wish you'd invested in the microscope. Viewing cells by loupe is not impossible but may just be too much hassle. I would do it only if I knew I would never need the micsroscope for anything else again, and had a really limited budget.
- Badges
- Science topic