Looking for feedback on fluorescence slide scanners

Hello all! I’m in the market for a slide scanner and would love to hear peoples experiences with different models. I know a lot about the Zeiss AxioScan, less about the others. What do you like, what do you find frustrating, etc. More colors is always better. Many thanks!

2 Likes

So we are in the middle of a similar dilemma. We had an olympus dotslide - in Scotland Olympus representation is a little on the sparse side, but I can’t comment on elsewhere. Although I felt the Dotslide we had gave good quality images. It was buggy and we did need technical support from time to time. This was replaced by a Hammamatsu Nanozoomer. What’s good about it is it’s dead easy to use and can hold 180 slides. What’s not so great is fluorescence, it has a triple filter cube, and singles could be added. The control software for fluorescence is not my favourite. We’re looking for other alternatives at the moment specifically for Fluorescence. I like what Nikon does although A Biostation is quite pricey for what we need. Throughout the university in Edinburgh we have 5 AxioScans - which I think is telling. We have moved over to QPath for Analysis and that has been awesome so far.

1 Like

This is great information, thank you!!

If you are planning to do fluorescence the Zeiss AxioScan is a really nice system and it rarely let us down throughout the 4 years that we have it.
I agree that the Nanozoomer is a nice system as well, in particular for widefield but fluorescence is not good and they have an odd data format that can not be read by BioFormats and thus OMERO which is a nogo for us.
Also important to consider is the loading regime: does the system load single slides or does it use a tray? Usually trays (like on the Axioscan) are better because sticky slides with excessive amounts of mounting medium will not get stuck…

1 Like

Unless there is some version dependence, the Nanozoomer’s NDPIS files (NDPIS+# NDPI channel files) should be readable by BioFormats, unless the system itself is set up incorrectly (our was for a while). It requires wavelength information to be set. On the other hand, I also don’t like the control software for our Nanozoomer, as it is incredibly limited. You select exposure on a 1, 2, 4, 8 scale? Really?


I’m not sure if OMERO has further problems unrelated to BioFormats as I don’t have any experience with it.

On a somewhat similar note, the quality of the 3DHistech scanners was quite good, and possibly the price? But the resulting MRXS format is terrible, and only supported (partially) by OpenSlide and another couple of libraries that are less used than BioFormats. Of course, if I am, in turn, wrong about that I would love to know!

2 Likes

Ah, Edinburgh, cool! Not surprised you have started using QuPath :slight_smile:

Do you know what filter cubes you are using for the AxioScans? I was helping with some severe bleedthrough problems at another nearby institution using the Quad cubes… they ended up swapping to singles despite the slowdown in scan speed. I am not sure how consistent the bleedthrough problem actually is across many fluorophores though.

Maybe I could get a better idea through FPbase if we are ever shopping…

1 Like

I have seen and used an Olympus VS120 multiple times, it is excellent. There are options to the build, uses an LED, I think it has an 8 position filter wheel, depending on the rest of the build you can have many wavelengths. Can get it with fluorescence only, or fluorescence and a great color camera. Can get it with a 6 position stage or an autoloader. I’ve heard rumor that the VS120 is being replaced by a new instrument - this could get you a good deal!

1 Like

Wendy,
Just saw something really interesting from Nikon. BioPipeline-slides, part of their High Content Analysis systems products.Check out the website and brochures. https://www.microscope.healthcare.nikon.com/products/high-content-imaging