ArticlePDF Available

Optical Trapping

Review of Scientific Instruments

October 2004
75(9):2787-809

DOI:10.1063/1.1785844

Source
PubMed

Authors:

Keir C Neuman

National Institutes of Health

Since their invention just over 20 years ago, optical traps have emerged as a powerful tool with broad-reaching applications in biology and physics. Capabilities have evolved from simple manipulation to the application of calibrated forces on-and the measurement of nanometer-level displacements of-optically trapped objects. We review progress in the development of optical trapping apparatus, including instrument design considerations, position detection schemes and calibration techniques, with an emphasis on recent advances. We conclude with a brief summary of innovative optical trapping configurations and applications.

…

Figures - uploaded by Keir C Neuman

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Keir C Neuman

Content may be subject to copyright.

Optical trapping

Keir C. Neuman and Steven M. Block

Department of Biological Sciences, and Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University,

Stanford, California 94305

Abstract

Since their invention just over 20 years ago, optical traps have emerged as a powerful tool with broad-

reaching applications in biology and physics. Capabilities have evolved from simple manipulation

to the application of calibrated forces on—and the measurement of nanometer-level displacements

of—optically trapped objects. We review progress in the development of optical trapping apparatus,

including instrument design considerations, position detection schemes and calibration techniques,

with an emphasis on recent advances. We conclude with a brief summary of innovative optical

trapping configurations and applications.

I. INTRODUCTION

Arthur Ashkin pioneered the field of laser-based optical trapping in the early 1970s. In a series

of seminal papers, he demonstrated that optical forces could displace and levitate micron-sized

dielectric particles in both water and air,

and he developed a stable, three-dimensional trap

based on counterpropagating laser beams.

This seminal work eventually led to the

development of the single-beam gradient force optical trap,

or “optical tweezers,” as it has

come to be known.

Ashkin and co-workers employed optical trapping in a wide-ranging series

of experiments from the cooling and trapping of neutral atoms

to manipulating live bacteria

and viruses.

6,7

Today, optical traps continue to find applications in both physics and biology.

For a recent survey of the literature on optical tweezers see Ref. 8. The ability to apply

picoNewton-level forces to micron-sized particles while simultaneously measuring

displacement with nanometer-level precision (or better) is now routinely applied to the study

of molecular motors at the single-molecule level,

9–19

the physics of colloids and mesoscopic

systems,

20–29

and the mechanical properties of polymers and biopolymers.

18,20,30–43

parallel with the widespread use of optical trapping, theoretical and experimental work on

fundamental aspects of optical trapping is being actively pursued.

4,20,44–48

In addition to the

many excellent reviews of optical trapping

9,49–53

and specialized applications of optical traps,

several comprehensive guides for building optical traps are now available.

54–60

For the

purpose of this review, we will concentrate on the fundamental aspects of optical trapping with

particular emphasis on recent advances.

Just as the early work on optical trapping was made possible by advances in laser technology,

much of the recent progress in optical trapping can be attributed to further technological

development. The advent of commercially available, three-dimensional (3D) piezoelectric

stages with capacitive sensors has afforded unprecedented control of the position of a trapped

object. Incorporation of such stages into optical trapping instruments has resulted in higher

spatial precision and improved calibration of both forces and displacements. In addition, stage-

based force clamping techniques have been developed that can confer certain advantages over

other approaches of maintaining the force, such as dynamically adjusting the position or

stiffness of the optical trap. The use of high-bandwidth position detectors

improves force

Electronic mail: sblock@stanford.edu.

NIH Public Access

Author Manuscript

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

Published in final edited form as:

Rev Sci Instrum. 2004 September ; 75(9): 2787–2809.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

calibration, particularly for very stiff traps, and extends the detection bandwidth of optical

trapping measurements. In parallel with these technological improvements, recent theoretical

work has led to a better understanding of 3D position detection

62–64

and progress has been

made in calculating the optical forces on spherical objects with a range of sizes.

65,66

II. PRINCIPLES OF OPTICAL TRAPPING

An optical trap is formed by tightly focusing a laser beam with an objective lens of high

numerical aperture (NA). A dielectric particle near the focus will experience a force due to the

transfer of momentum from the scattering of incident photons. The resulting optical force has

traditionally been decomposed into two components: (1) a scattering force, in the direction of

light propagation and (2) a gradient force, in the direction of the spatial light gradient. This

decomposition is merely a convenient and intuitive means of discussing the overall optical

force. Following tradition, we present the optical force in terms of these two components, but

we stress that both components arise from the very same underlying physics (see theoretical

progress, below for a unified expression). The scattering component of the force is the more

familiar of the two, which can be thought of as a photon “fire hose” pushing the bead in the

direction of light propagation. Incident light impinges on the particle from one direction, but

is scattered in a variety of directions, while some of the incident light may be absorbed. As a

result, there is a net momentum transfer to the particle from the incident photons. For an

isotropic scatter, the resulting forces cancel in all but the forward direction, and an effective

scattering cross section can be calculated for the object. For most conventional situations, the

scattering force dominates. However, if there is a steep intensity gradient (i.e., near the focus

of a laser), the second component of the optical force, the gradient force, must be considered.

The gradient force, as the name suggests, arises from the fact that a dipole in an inhomogeneous

electric field experiences a force in the direction of the field gradient.

In an optical trap, the

laser induces fluctuating dipoles in the dielectric particle, and it is the interaction of these

dipoles with the inhomogeneous electric field at the focus that gives rise to the gradient trapping

force. The gradient force is proportional to both the polarizability of the dielectric and the

optical intensity gradient at the focus.

For stable trapping in all three dimensions, the axial gradient component of the force pulling

the particle towards the focal region must exceed the scattering component of the force pushing

it away from that region. This condition necessitates a very steep gradient in the light, produced

by sharply focusing the trapping laser beam to a diffraction-limited spot using an objective of

high NA. As a result of this balance between the gradient force and the scattering force, the

axial equilibrium position of a trapped particle is located slightly beyond (i.e., down-beam

from) the focal point. For small displacements (~150 nm), the gradient restoring force is simply

proportional to the offset from the equilibrium position, i.e., the optical trap acts as Hookean

spring whose characteristic stiffness is proportional to the light intensity.

In developing a theoretical treatment of optical trapping, there are two limiting cases for which

the force on a sphere can be readily calculated. When the trapped sphere is much larger than

the wavelength of the trapping laser, i.e., the radius (a) ≫ λ, the conditions for Mie scattering

are satisfied, and optical forces can be computed from simple ray optics (Fig. 1). Refraction

of the incident light by the sphere corresponds to a change in the momentum carried by the

light. By Newton’s third law, an equal and opposite momentum change is imparted to the

sphere. The force on the sphere, given by the rate of momentum change, is proportional to the

light intensity. When the index of refraction of the particle is greater than that of the surrounding

medium, the optical force arising from refraction is in the direction of the intensity gradient.

Conversely, for an index lower than that of the medium, the force is in the opposite direction

of the intensity gradient. The scattering component of the force arises from both the absorption

and specular reflection by the trapped object. In the case of a uniform sphere, optical forces

Neuman and Block Page 2

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

can be directly calculated in the ray-optics regime.

68,69

The extremal rays contribute

disproportionally to the axial gradient force, whereas the central rays are primarily responsible

for the scattering force. Thus, expanding a Gaussian laser beam to slightly overfill the objective

entrance pupil can increase the ratio of trapping to scattering force, resulting in improved

trapping efficiency.

69,70

In practice, the beam is typically expanded such that the 1/e

intensity

points match the objective aperture, resulting in ~87% of the incident power entering the

objective. Care should be exercised when overfilling the objective. Absorption of the excess

light by the blocking aperture can cause heating and thermal expansion of the objective,

resulting in comparatively large (~μm) axial motions when the intensity is changed. Axial

trapping efficiency can also be improved through the use of “donut” mode trapping beams,

such as the TEM

mode or Laguerre-Gaussian beams, which have intensity minima on the

optical propagation axis.

69,71–73

When the trapped sphere is much smaller than the wavelength of the trapping laser, i.e., a ≪

λ, the conditions for Raleigh scattering are satisfied and optical forces can be calculated by

treating the particle as a point dipole. In this approximation, the scattering and gradient force

components are readily separated. The scattering force is due to absorption and reradiation of

light by the dipole. For a sphere of radius a, this force is

scatt

σn

, (1)

128

(

− 1

+ 2

)

(2)

where I

is the intensity of the incident light, σ is the scattering cross section of the sphere,

is the index of refraction of the medium, c is the speed of light in vacuum, m is the ratio of

the index of refraction of the particle to the index of the medium (n

, and λ is the wavelength

of the trapping laser. The scattering force is in the direction of propagation of the incident light

and is proportional the intensity. The time-averaged gradient force arises from the interaction

of the induced dipole with the inhomogeneous field

grad

πα

∇

(3)

where

(

− 1

+ 2

)

(4)

is the polarizability of the sphere. The gradient force is proportional to the intensity gradient,

and points up the gradient when m>1.

When the dimensions of the trapped particle are comparable to the wavelength of the trapping

laser (a ~ λ), neither the ray optic nor the point-dipole approach is valid. Instead, more complete

electromagnetic theories are required to supply an accurate description.

74–80

Unfortunately,

the majority of objects that are useful or interesting to trap, in practice, tend to fall into this

intermediate size range (0.1–10λ). As a practical matter, it can be difficult to work with objects

smaller than can be readily observed by video microscopy(~0.1 μm), although particles as

small as ~35 nm in diameter have been successfully trapped. Dielectric microspheres used

alone or as handles to manipulate other objects are typically in the range of ~0.2–5 μm, which

is the same size range as biological specimens that can be trapped directly, e.g., bacteria, yeast,

Neuman and Block Page 3

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

and organelles of larger cells. Whereas some theoretical progress in calculating the force on a

sphere in this intermediate size range has been made recently,

65,66

the more general

description does not provide further insight into the physics of optical trapping. For this reason

we postpone discussion of recent theoretical work until the end of the review.

III. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Implementing a basic optical trap is a relatively straightforward exercise (Fig. 2).

55,58

The

essential elements are a trapping laser, beam expansion and steering optics, a high NA

objective, a trapping chamber holder, and some means of observing the trapped specimen.

Optical traps are most often built by modifying an inverted microscope so that a laser beam

can be introduced into the optical path before the objective: the microscope then provides the

imaging, trapping chamber manipulation, and objective focus functions. For anything beyond

simply trapping and manually manipulating objects, however, additional elements become

necessary. Dynamic control of trap position and stiffness can be achieved through beam

steering and amplitude modulation elements incorporated in the optical path before the laser

beam enters the objective. Dynamic control over position and stiffness of the optical trap has

been exploited to implement position-and force-clamp systems. Position clamps, in which the

position of a trapped object is held constant by varying the force, are well suited for stall force

measurements of molecular motors.

39,49,81–83

Force clamps, in which the force on a trapped

object is fixed by varying the position of the trap, are well suited for displacement

measurements.

49,56,81,84,85

Incorporation of a piezoelectric stage affords dynamic

positioning of the sample chamber relative to the trap, and greatly facilitates calibration.

Furthermore, for the commonly employed geometry in which the molecule of interest is

attached between the surface of the trapping cell and a trapped bead “handle,” piezoelectric

stages can be used to generate a force clamp.

86–88

The measurement of force and displacement

within the optical trap requires a position detector, and, in some configurations, a second, low

power laser for detection. We consider each of these elements in detail.

A. Commercial systems

Commercial optical trapping systems with some limited capabilities are available. Cell

Robotics

manufactures a laser-trapping module that can be added to a number of inverted

microscopes. The module consists of a 1.5 W diode pumped Nd:YVO

laser (λ = 1064 nm)

with electronic intensity control, and all of the optics needed to both couple the laser into the

microscope and manually control the position of the trap in the specimen plane. The same

module is incorporated into the optical tweezers workstation, which includes a microscope, a

motorized stage and objective focus, video imaging, and a computer interface. Arryx

Incorporated

manufactures a complete optical trapping workstation that includes a 2 W diode

pumped solid-state laser (λ=532 nm), holographic beam shaping and steering, an inverted

microscope, a motorized stage, and computer control. Holographic beam shaping provides

control over the phase of the trapping laser,

91,92

which allows multiple, individually

addressable, optical traps in addition to high order, complex trapping beams. An integrated

optical trap is also available from PALM Microlaser Technologies,

either alone or

incorporated with their microdissection system. The PALM system employs an infrared

trapping laser and computer control of the stage, similar to the other optical trapping systems.

The commercial systems tend to be expensive, but they offer turnkey convenience at the price

of flexibility and control. None of the systems currently comes equipped with position detection

capabilities beyond video imaging, and only one (Arryx) provides dynamic control over the

trap position, but with an unknown update rate (~5 Hz or less). Overall, these systems are

adequate for positioning and manipulating objects but are incapable, without further

modifications, of ultrasensitive position or force measurements. As commercial systems

become increasingly sophisticated and versatile, they may eventually offer an “off-the-shelf”

Neuman and Block Page 4

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

option for some optical trapping applications. In deciding between a commercial or custom-

built optical trap, or among commercial systems, several factors should be considered. Basic

considerations include cost, maximum trap force and stiffness, choice of laser wavelength

(important for biological samples), specimen or trap positioning capability, optical imaging

modes, position-detection capabilities, and sample geometry. In addition, flexibility and the

possibility to upgrade or improve aspects of the system should also be considered. How easily

can the optical system be modified or adapted? Can the functionality be upgraded? Perhaps

the most fundamental question concerns the decision to buy or to build. Whereas building a

basic optical trap is now standard practice in many labs, it requires a certain familiarity with

optics and optical components (in relation to the complexity of the optical trap), as well as a

significant time investment for the design, construction, and debugging phases. These factors

should be weighed against the potential benefits of reduced cost, increased flexibility and

greater control of home-built optical traps.

B. Trapping laser

The basic requirement of a trapping laser is that it delivers a single mode output (typically,

Gaussian TEM

mode) with excellent pointing stability and low power fluctuations. A

Gaussian mode focuses to the smallest diameter beam waist and will therefore produce the

most efficient, harmonic trap. Pointing instabilities lead to unwanted displacements of the

optical trap position in the specimen plane, whereas power fluctuations lead to temporal

variations in the optical trap stiffness. Pointing instability can be remedied by coupling the

trapping laser to the optical trap via an optical fiber, or by imaging the effective pivot point of

the laser pointing instability into the front focal plane of the objective. Both of these solutions

however, trade reduced pointing stability against additional amplitude fluctuations, as the fiber

coupling and the clipping by the back aperture of the microscope objective depend on beam

pointing. Thus, both power and pointing fluctuations introduce unwanted noise into any

trapping system. The choice of a suitable trapping laser therefore depends on several

interdependent figures of merit (power, power stability, pointing stability, thermal drift,

wavelength, mode quality, etc.).

Output power of the trapping laser and the throughput of the optical system will determine the

maximum attainable stiffness and force. As discussed above, trapping forces depend on

multiple parameters and are difficult to calculate for most conditions of practical interest.

Generally speaking, maximum trapping forces on the order of 1 pN per 10 mW of power

delivered to the specimen plane can be achieved with micron-scale beads.

As a specific

example, trapping a 0.5 μm polystyrene (n=1.57) sphere in water with a TEM

1064 nm laser

that overfills a 1.2 NA objective by ~10% (1/e

intensity points matched to the aperture radius),

gives a stiffness of 0.16 pN/nm per W of power in the specimen plane. In practice, laser power

levels can range from a few mW to a Watt or more in the specimen plane, depending on details

of the laser and setup, objective transmittance, and the desired stiffness.

Wavelength is an important consideration when biological material is trapped, particularly for

in vivo trapping of cells or small organisms.

There is a window of relative transparency in

the near infrared portion of the spectrum(~750–1200 nm), located in the region between the

absorption of proteins in the visible and the increasing absorption of water towards the infrared.

Substantial variation with wavelength of optical damage to biological specimens is observed

even within the near infrared region (Fig. 3), with damage minima occurring at 970 and 830

95–97

for bacterial cells of Escherichia coli. If damage or “opticution”

of biological

specimens is not a concern, then the choice of wavelength becomes less critical, but the

potential effects of heating resulting from light absorption by the medium or the trapped particle

should certainly be considered.

99–101

The optimal choice of trapping wavelength will also

Neuman and Block Page 5

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

depend on the transmission of the objective used for optical trapping (discussed below), as well

as the output power available at a given wavelength.

In practice, a variety of lasers has been employed for optical trapping. The factors discussed

above, along with the cost, will determine the final selection of a trapping laser. The laser of

choice for working with biological samples is currently the neodymium:yttrium–aluminum–

garnet (Nd:YAG) laser and its close cousins, neodymium: yttrium–lithium–fluoride (Nd:YLF),

and neodymium: yttrium–orthovanadate (Nd:YVO

. These lasers operate in the near infrared

region of the spectrum at 1.047, 1.053, or 1.064 μm, which helps to limit optical damage. Diode

pumped versions of these lasers offer high power (up to 10 W or even more) and superior

amplitude and pointing stability. An additional advantage of diode-pumped solid-state (DPSS)

lasers is that the noise and heat of the laser power supply can be physically isolated from the

laser itself and the immediate region of the optical trap. The output of the pump diodes can be

delivered to the laser head via an optical fiber bundle, in some cases up to 10 m in length. The

main drawback of such DPSS lasers is their cost, currently on the order of $5–10 K per W of

output power. Diode lasers afford a lower-cost alternative in a compact package and are

available at several wavelengths in the near infrared, but these devices are typically limited to

less than ~250 mW in a single-transverse mode, the mode required for efficient trapping. Diode

lasers also suffer significantly from mode instabilities and noncircular beams, which

necessitates precise temperature control instrumentation and additional corrective optics. By

far the most expensive laser option is a tunable cw titanium:sapphire (Ti:sapphire) laser

pumped by a DPSS laser, a system that delivers high power(~1 W) over a large portion of the

near infrared spectrum(~750–950 nm), but at a current cost in excess of $100 K. The large

tuning range is useful for parametric studies of optical trapping, to optimize the trapping

wavelength, or to investigate the wavelength-dependence of optical damage.

A Ti:sapphire

laser is also employed for optical trapping in vivo

since it is the only laser currently available

that can deliver over ~250 mW at the most benign wavelengths (830 and 970 nm).

In optical trapping applications where no biological materials will be trapped, any laser source

that meets the basic criteria of adequate power in the specimen plane, sufficient pointing and

amplitude stability, and a Gaussian intensity profile, may be suitable. Optical traps have been

built based on argon ion,

helium-neon,

102

and diode laser sources,

103,104

to name a few.

The DPSS lasers employed in our lab for biological work supply ~4 W of power at 1064 nm

with power fluctuations below 1% –2% and a long-term pointing stability of ±50 μrad.

C. Microscope

Most optical traps are built around a conventional light microscope, requiring only minor

modifications. This approach reduces the construction of an optical trap to that of coupling the

light from a suitable trapping laser into the optical path before the objective without

compromising the original imaging capabilities of the microscope. In practice, this is most

often achieved by inserting a dichroic mirror, which reflects the trapping laser light into the

optical path of the microscope but transmits the light used for microscope illumination.

Inverted, rather than upright, microscopes are often preferred for optical trapping because their

stage is fixed and the objective moves, making it easier to couple the trapping light stably. The

use of a conventional microscope also makes it easier to use a variety of available imaging

modalities, such as differential interference contrast and epi-fluorescence.

With more extensive modifications, a position detector can be incorporated into the trapping

system. This involves adding a second dichroic mirror on the condenser side of the microscope,

which reflects the laser light while transmitting the illuminating light. In order to achieve the

mechanical stability and rigidity required for nanometer scale position measurements, more

extensive modifications of the microscope are generally required.

50,59

In the current

generation of optical traps, the rotating, multiobjective turret is conventionally replaced with

Neuman and Block Page 6

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

a custom-built single objective holder, along with a mount for the dichroic mirror. The original

stage is removed and the microscope is modified to accommodate a more substantial stage

platform, holding a crossed-roller bearing stage (for coarse movement) mounted to a

piezoelectric stage with feedback (for fine movement). Finally, the condenser assembly is

attached to a fine focus transport (similar to that used for the objective) that is then mounted

to the illumination column by a rigid aluminum beam.

An alternative to the redesign and retrofitting of a commercial microscope is to build the entire

optical trap from individual optical components.

57,103,104

This approach is slightly more

involved, as the entirety of the imaging and trapping optical paths have to be designed and

built. The increase in complexity, however, can be offset by increased flexibility in the design

and a wider choice of components, greater access to the optical paths, and reduced cost.

D. Objective

The single most important element of an optical trap is the objective used to focus the trapping

laser. The choice of objective determines the overall efficiency of the optical trapping system

(stiffness versus input power), which is a function of both the NA and the transmittance of the

objective. Additionally, the working distance and the immersion medium of the objective (oil,

water, or glycerol) will set practical limits on the depth to which objects can be trapped.

Spherical aberrations, which degrade trap performance, are proportional to the refractive index

mismatch between the immersion medium and the aqueous trapping medium. The deleterious

effect of these aberrations increases with focal depth. The working distance of most high NA

oil immersion objectives is quite short (~0.1 mm), and the large refractive index mismatch

between the immersion oil (n=1.512) and the aqueous trapping medium (n ~ 1.32) leads to

significant spherical aberrations. In practice, this limits the maximum axial range of the optical

trap to somewhere between 5 and 20 μm from the coverglass surface of the trapping chamber.

104

Trapping deeper into solution can be achieved with water immersion objectives that

minimize spherical aberration

105

and which are available with longer working distances. A

high NA objective (typically, 1.2–1.4 NA) is required to produce an intensity gradient sufficient

to overcome the scattering force and produce a stable optical trap for microscopic objects, such

as polystyrene beads. The vast majority of high NA objectives are complex, multielement

optical assemblies specifically designed for imaging visible light, not for focusing an infrared

laser beam. For this reason, the optical properties of different objectives can vary widely over

the near infrared region (Fig. 4).

9,95

Generally speaking, objectives designed for general

fluorescence microscopy display superior transmission over the near infrared compared to most

general-purpose objectives, as do infrared-rated objectives specifically produced for use with

visible and near infrared light (Table I). Given the wide variation in transmission characteristics

for different objectives, an objective being considered for optical trapping should be

characterized at the wavelength of the trapping light. Manufacturers rarely supply the

transmission characteristics of objectives outside the visible portion of the spectrum. When

transmission characteristics in the near infrared are provided, the figures may represent an

overestimate, since the throughput of the objective is often measured using an integrating

sphere, which also registers scattered light that is not well focused, and hence does not

contribute to trapping. To measure the effective transmission of a high NA objective accurately,

the dual objective method is preferred,

9,95,106

in which two identical, matched objectives are

used to focus and then recollimate the laser beam (the transmission of a single objective is the

square root of the transmission for the objective pair). Furthermore, because the transmission

may depend on the degree to which light is bent, the laser beam should be expanded to fill the

objective rear aperture. It should be noted that the extremely steep focusing produced by high

NA objectives can lead to specular reflection from surfaces at the specimen plane, so simply

measuring the throughput of an objective by placing the probe of a power meter directly in

Neuman and Block Page 7

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

front of the objective lens results in an underestimation of its transmission. This approach is

not recommended.

E. Position detection

Sensitive position detection lies at the heart of quantitative optical trapping, since nanoscale

measurements of both force and displacement rely on a well-calibrated system for determining

position. Position tracking of irregularly shaped objects is feasible, but precise position and

force calibration are currently only practical with spherical objects. For this purpose,

microscopic beads are either used alone, or attached to objects of interest as “handles,” to apply

calibrated forces. The position detection schemes presented here were primarily developed to

track microscopic silica or polystyrene beads. However, the same techniques may be applied

to track other objects, such as bacterial cells.

107–109

1. Video based position detection—For simple imaging of a trapped particle, a video

camera mounted to the camera port of the microscope (or elsewhere) often suffices. By digitally

processing the signal acquired from the camera, and knowing the size subtended by a single

pixel (e.g., by calibrating the video picture against a distance standard, such as a ruled objective

micrometer), the position of a trapped object can be determined with subpixel accuracy

(typically, to within ~5 nm or better), using any of several centroid-finding algorithms.

110–

112

Video tracking of trapped objects using such algorithms has been implemented in real

time,

113,114

but this approach is restricted to video acquisition rates (typically ~25–120 Hz),

and the precision is ultimately limited by video timing jitter (associated with frame acquisition)

or variations in illumination. In principle, temporal resolution could be improved through the

use of high speed video cameras. Burst frame rates in excess of 40 kHz can be achieved with

specialized complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) cameras, for example.

However, the usefulness of high speed cameras can be limited by computer speed or memory

capacity. Current CPU speed limits real-time position tracking to ~500 Hz,

115

while practical

storage considerations limit the number of high-resolution frames that can be stored to ~10

which corresponds to less than 2 min of high-speed video at 1 kHz. Even if these technological

hurdles are overcome, high-speed video tracking is ultimately limited by the number of

recorded photons (since shorter exposures require more illumination), so spatial resolution

decreases as the frame rate increases. Generally speaking, the signal-to-noise ratio is expected

to decrease as the square root of the frame rate. The discrepancy between the low video

bandwidth(~100 Hz) and the much higher intrinsic bandwidth of even a relatively weak optical

trap(~kHz) results in aliasing artifacts, and these preclude the implementation of many of the

most effective calibration methods. Furthermore, video-based methods are not well suited to

the measurement of the relative position of an object with respect to the trap center, further

complicating force determination.

2. Imaging position detector—Several alternative (nonvideo) methods have been

developed that offer precise, high-bandwidth position detection of trapped objects. The

simplest of these is to image directly the trapped object onto a quadrant photodiode (QPD).

56,116,117

The diode quadrants are then summed pairwise, and differential signals are derived

from the pairs for both x and y dimensions. If desired, the differential signals can be normalized

by the sum signal from the four quadrants to reduce the dependence of the output on the total

light intensity. Direct imaging of a trapped particle is typically restricted to a small zone within

the specimen plane, and requires careful coalignment of the trap with the region viewed by the

detector. Moreover, the high magnification required to achieve good spatial resolution results

in comparatively low light levels at the QPD, ultimately limiting bandwidth and noise

performance.

49,50

The latter limitation has been addressed by the use of a diode laser operating

just below its lasing threshold, acting as a superbright, incoherent illumination source.

Imaging using laser illumination is considered impractical because of the speckle and

Neuman and Block Page 8

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

interference that arise from coherent illumination over an extended region. Various laser phase-

randomization approaches may relieve this restriction, but these typically carry additional

disadvantages, most often reduced temporal bandwidth.

3. Laser-based position detection—Laser-based position detection is appealing, because

it is possible to use a single laser for both trapping and position detection. Unlike the imaging

detector scheme described above, laser-based detection requires the incorporation of a dichroic

mirror on the condenser side of the microscope to couple out the laser light scattered by the

specimen. Furthermore, the detector and its associated optics (lens, filters) must be stably

mounted on (or next to) the condenser to collect the output light. Two different laser-based

position detection schemes have been developed. The first relies on polarization interferometry.

9,49,50,118,119

This method is quite analogous to differential interference contrast (DIC)

microscopy, and it relies on a subset of the DIC imaging components within the microscope.

Incoming plane polarized laser light is split by a Wollaston prism into two orthogonal

polarizations that are physically displaced from one another. After passing through the

specimen plane, the beams are recombined in a second Wollaston prism and the polarization

state of the recombined light is measured. A simple polarimeter consists of a quarter wave plate

(adjusted so that plane-polarized light is transformed into circularly polarized light) followed

by a polarizing beam splitter. The intensity in each branch of the beam splitter is recorded by

a photodiode, and the normalized differential diode signal supplies the polarization state of the

light. A bead centered in the trap introduces an equal phase delay in both beams, and the

recombined light is therefore plane polarized. When the bead is displaced from its equilibrium

position, it introduces a relative phase delay between the two beams, leading to a slight elliptical

polarization after the beams are recombined. The ellipticity of the recombined light can be

calibrated against physical displacement by moving a bead a known distance through the

optical trap. This technique is extraordinarily sensitive

118

and is, in theory, independent of the

position of the trapped object within the specimen plane, because the trapping and detection

laser beams are one and the same, and therefore intrinsically aligned. In practice, however,

there is a limited range over which the position signal is truly independent of the trap position.

A further limitation of this technique is that it is one dimensional: it is sensitive to displacement

along the Wollaston shear axis, providing position detection in a single lateral direction.

A second type of laser-based position detection scheme—back focal plane detection—relies

on the interference between forward-scattered light from the bead and unscattered light.

59,

64,120–122

The interference signal is monitored with a QPD positioned along the optical axis

at a plane conjugate to the back focal plane of the condenser (rather than at an imaging plane

conjugate to the specimen). The light pattern impinging on the QPD is then converted to a

normalized differential output in both lateral dimensions as described above. By imaging the

back focal plane of the condenser, the position signal becomes insensitive to absolute bead

position in the specimen plane, and sensitive instead to the relative displacement of the bead

from the laser beam axis.

120

As with the polarization interferometer, the detection beam and

the optical trap are intrinsically aligned, however the QPD detection scheme can supply

position information in both lateral dimensions.

Laser-based position detection schemes have also been implemented with a second, low-power

detection laser.

49,50,59,81

The experimental complication of having to combine, spatially

overlap, and then separate the trapping and detection beams is frequently outweighed by the

advantages conferred by having an independent detection laser. Uncoupling trapping and

detection may become necessary, for example, when there are multiple traps produced in the

specimen plane, or if the absolute position of a bead is the relevant measure, rather than the

relative position of a bead from the optical trap. When dynamic position control of the optical

trap is implemented (see below), a separate detection laser permits rapid position calibration

of each trapped particle, and greatly simplifies position measurements in situations in which

Neuman and Block Page 9

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

the trap is being moved.

The choice of a laser for position sensing is less constrained than

that of a trapping laser, and only a few mW of output power suffice for most detection schemes.

The total power should be kept as low as feasible to prevent the detection light from generating

significant optical forces itself, thereby perturbing the trap. A detection laser wavelength

chosen to match the peak sensitivity of the photodetector will minimize the amount of power

required in the specimen plane. Separating the detection and trapping wavelengths facilitates

combining and separating the two beams, but increases the constraints on the dichroic mirror

that couples the laser beams into the microscope. We have found that combining two beams

of similar wavelength is most easily accomplished with a polarizing beamsplitter, i.e., the

beams are orthogonally plane polarized and combined in the polarizer before entering the

microscope. Since the trapping and detection wavelengths are closely spaced, a single

reflection band on the coupling dichroic mirror suffices to couple both beams into and out of

the microscope. A holographic notch filter in front of the position detector provides ~6 orders

of magnitude of rejection at the trapping wavelength, permitting isolation and measurement of

the much less intense detection beam.

4. Axial position detection—The detection schemes described above were developed to

measure lateral displacement of objects within the specimen plane, a major focus of most

optical trapping work. Detecting axial motion within the optical trap has rarely been

implemented and has not been as well characterized until recently. Axial motion has been

determined by: measuring the intensity of scattered laser light on an overfilled photodiode;

123–126

through two-photon fluorescence generated by the trapping laser;

127–130

and by

evanescent-wave fluorescence at the surface of a coverglass.

131,132

Although these various

approaches all supply a signal related to axial position, they require the integration of additional

detectors and, in some cases, fluorescence capability, into the optical trapping instrument. This

can be somewhat cumbersome, consequently the techniques have not been widely adopted.

The axial position of a trapped particle can also be determined from the total laser intensity in

the back focal plane of the condenser.

62,64

The axial position signal derives from the

interference between light scattered by the trapped particle and the unscattered beam. On

passing through a focus, the laser light accumulates a phase shift of π, known as the Gouy

phase.

133

The axial phase shift is given by ψ(z) =tan

−1

(z/z

), where z

is the Rayleigh range

= πw

/λ, where w

is the beam waist and λis the wavelength of light), and z is the axial

displacement from the focus.

133

Light scattered by a particle located near the focus will

preserve the phase that it acquired prior to being scattered, whereas unscattered light will

accumulate the full Gouy phase shift of π. The far-field interference between the scattered and

unscattered light gives rise to an axial position-dependent intensity, which can be measured,

for example, at the back focal plane of the condenser (see below and Fig. 8). This is the axial

counterpart, in fact, of the lateral interference signal described above. Axial position detection

can be achieved through a simple variant of quadrant photodiode-based lateral position

detection. Recording the total incident intensity on the position detector supplies the axial

position of trapped particle relative to the laser focus.

63,64

In contrast to lateral position

detection, axial position detection is inversely proportional to the NA of the detector.

62,63

When a single detector is used to measure both lateral and axial position simultaneously, an

intermediate detector NA should be used to obtain reasonable sensitivity in all three

dimensions.

5. Detector bandwidth limitations—Position detection based on lasers facilitates high

bandwidth recording because of the high intensity of light incident on the photodetector.

However, the optical absorption of silicon decreases significantly beyond ~850 nm, therefore

position sensing by silicon-based photodetectors is intrinsically bandwidth limited in the near

infrared.

61,134

Berg-Sørenson and co-workers

134

demonstrated that the electrical response

of a typical silicon photodiode to infrared light consists of both a fast and a slow component.

Neuman and Block Page 10

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The fast component results from optical absorption in the depletion region of the diode, where

the optically generated electron hole pairs are rapidly swept to the electrodes. This represents

the intended behavior of the diode, and is valid at wavelengths that are readily absorbed by the

active material, i.e., λ < ~ 1 μm. At longer wavelengths, however, a slow component also

appears in the diode response, due to absorption of light beyond the depletion region. Electron–

hole pairs generated in this zone must diffuse into the depletion region before flowing on to

the electrodes, a much slower process. Infrared light is poorly absorbed by silicon, resulting

in a greater proportion of the incident light being absorbed beyond the depletion region,

increasing the relative contribution of the slow component. Thus, the output of the diode

effectively becomes lowpass filtered (f

3dB

~ 8–9 kHz at 1064 nm) in an intensity-, wavelength-,

and reverse bias-dependent manner.

134

In principle, the effect of this lowpass filtering could

be calculated and compensated, but in practice, this approach is complicated by the intensity

dependence of the parasitic filtering. One workaround would be to employ a detection laser at

a wavelength closer to the absorption maximum of silicon, i.e., shorter than ~850 nm. Two

other solutions include using nonsilicon-based detectors employing different photoactive

materials, or using silicon-based photo-detectors with architectures that minimize the parasitic

filtering. Peterman and co-workers measured the wavelength dependence of parasitic filtering

in a standard silicon-based detector. They also reported an increased bandwidth at wavelengths

up to 1064 nm for an InGaAs diode as well as for a specialized, fully depleted silicon detector.

We have found that one commercial position sensitive detector (PSD) (Pacific Silicon

Detectors, which supplies output signals similar to those from a QPD, although operating on

a different principle), does not suffer from parasitic filtering below ~ 150 kHz with 1064 nm

illumination (Fig. 5).

F. Dynamic position control

Precise, calibrated lateral motion of the optical trap in the specimen plane allows objects to be

manipulated and moved relative to the surface of the trapping chamber. More significantly,

dynamic computer control over the position and stiffness of the optical trap allows the force

on a trapped object to be varied in real time, which has been exploited to generate both force

and position clamp measurement conditions.

50,81

Additionally, if the position of the optical

trap is scanned at a rate faster than the Brownian relaxation time of a trapped object, multiple

traps can be created by time sharing a single laser beam.

We consider below the different

beam-steering strategies.

1. Scanning mirrors—Traditional galvanometer scanning mirrors benefited from the

incorporation of feedback to improve stability and precision. Current commercial systems

operate at 1–2 kHz with step response times as short as 100 μs, and with 8 μrad repeatability.

The comparatively slow temporal response limits their usefulness for fast-scanning

applications, but their low insertion loss and large deflection angles make them a low-cost

option for slow-scanning and feedback applications. Recent advances in feedback-stabilized

piezoelectric (PZ) systems have resulted in the introduction of PZ scanning mirrors. For the

time being, PZ mirrors represent only a slight improvement over galvanometers, with effective

operation up to 1 kHz, but just 50 mrad deflection range, and only slightly better resolution

and linearity than galvanometers.

2. Acousto-optic deflectors—An acousto-optic deflector (AOD) consists of a transparent

crystal inside which an optical diffraction grating is generated by the density changes associated

with an acoustic traveling wave of ultrasound. The grating period is given by the wavelength

of the acoustic wave in the crystal, and the first-order diffracted light is deflected through an

angle that depends on the acoustic frequency through Δθ=λf/ν, where λ is the optical

wavelength, and ν and f are the velocity and frequency of the acoustic wave, respectively (ν/f

is the ultrasound wavelength). The diffraction efficiency is proportional to depth of the grating,

Neuman and Block Page 11

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

and therefore to the amplitude of the acoustic wave that produced it. AODs are thereby able

to control both the trap position (through deflection) and stiffness (through light level). The

maximum deflection of an AOD is linearly related to its operating frequency range, and

maximum deflections of somewhat over 1° are possible at 1064 nm. AODs are fast: their

response times are limited, in principle, by the ratio of the laser spot diameter to the speed of

sound within the crystal (~1.5 μs/mm laser diameter for TeO

crystals, slightly less for

NbO

crystals). In practice, however, the response time of an optical trapping instrument

is often limited by other components in the system. A pair of AODs can be combined in an

orthogonal configuration to provide both x and y deflections of the optical trap. Due to optical

losses in the AODs (an ~80% diffraction efficiency is typical), however, this scheme results

in an almost 40% power loss. In addition to mediocre transmission, the diffraction efficiency

of an AOD will often vary slightly as a function of its deflection. The resulting position-

dependent stiffness variation of the optical trap can either be tolerated (if within acceptable

margins for error), calibrated out,

or minimized by the selection of a particular range of

operating deflections over which the diffraction efficiency is more nearly constant. In practice,

however, every AOD needs to be characterized carefully before use for deflection-dependent

changes in throughput.

3. Electro-optic deflectors—An electro-optic deflector (EOD) consists of a crystal in

which the refractive index can be changed through the application of an external electric field.

A gradient in refractive index is established in one plane along the crystal, which deflects the

input light through an angle θ∝lV/w

, where V is the applied voltage, l is the crystal length,

and w is the aperture diameter. Deflections on the order of 20 mrad can be achieved with a

switching time as short as 100 ns, sufficient for some optical trapping applications. Despite

low insertion loss (~1%) and straightforward alignment, EODs have not been widely employed

in optical trapping systems. High cost and a limited deflection range may contribute to this.

G. Piezoelectric stage

Piezoelectric stage technology has been improved dramatically through the introduction of

high-precision controllers and sensitive capacitive position sensing. Stable, linear,

reproducible, ultrafine positioning in three dimensions is now readily achievable with the latest

generation of PZ stages. The traditional problems of hysteresis and drift in PZ devices have

been largely eliminated through the use of capacitive position sensors in a feedback loop. With

the feedback enabled, an absolute positional uncertainty of 1 nm has been achieved

commercially. PZ stages have had an impact on practically every aspect of optical trapping.

They can provide an absolute, NIST-traceable displacement measurement, from which all other

position calibrations can be derived. Furthermore, these stages permit three-dimensional

control of the position of the trap relative to the trapping chamber, which has previously proved

difficult or inaccurate.

The ability to move precisely in the axial dimension, in particular,

permits characterization of the longitudinal properties of the optical trap and can be used to

eliminate the creep and backlash typically associated with the mechanical (gear based) focusing

mechanism of the microscope. Position and force calibration routines employing the PZ stage

are faster, more reproducible, and more precise than previously attainable. Finally, a

piezoelectric stage can be incorporated into a force feedback loop

86,135–137

permitting

constant-force records of essentially arbitrary displacement, ultimately limited by the stage

travel (~100 μm) rather than the working range of the position detector (~0.3 μm), the latter

being the limiting factor in feedback based on moving the optical trap.

50,59

Stage-based force-

feedback permits clamping not only the transverse force, but also the axial force, and hence

the polar angle through which the force is applied. Despite these advantages, PZ stages are not

without their attendant drawbacks. They are comparatively expensive: a 3D stage with

capacitive feedback position sensing plus a digital controller costs roughly $25,000.

Furthermore, communication with the stage controller can be slower than for other methods

Neuman and Block Page 12

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

of dynamically controlling trap position (e.g., AODs or EODs), with a maximum rate of ~50

Hz.

H. Environmental isolation

To achieve the greatest possible sensitivity, stability, and signal-to-noise ratio in optical

trapping experiments, the environment in which the optical trapping is performed must be

carefully controlled. Four environmental factors affect optical trapping measurements:

temperature changes, acoustic noise, mechanical vibrations, and air convection. Thermal

fluctuations can lead to slow, large-scale drifts in the optical trapping instrument. For typical

optical trapping configurations, a 1 K temperature gradient easily leads to micrometers of drift

over a time span of minutes. In addition, acoustic noise can shake the optics that couple the

laser into the objective, the objective itself, or the detection optics that lie downstream of the

objective. Mechanical vibrations typically arise from heavy building equipment, e.g.,

compressors or pumps operating nearby, or from passing trucks on a roadway. Air currents

can induce low-frequency mechanical vibrations and also various optical perturbations (e.g.,

beam deflections from gradients in refractive index produced by density fluctuations in the

convected air, or light scattering by airborne dust particles), particularly near optical planes

where the laser is focused.

The amount of effort and resources dedicated to reducing ambient sources of noise should be

commensurate with the desired precision in the length and time scale of the measurements.

Slow thermal drift may not affect a rapid or transient measurement, but could render

meaningless the measurement of a slower process. Several methods of reducing noise and drift

have been employed in the current generation of optical traps.

The vast majority of optical trapping instruments have been built on top of passive air tables

that offer mechanical isolation (typically, −20 dB) at frequencies above ~2–10 Hz. For rejection

of lower frequencies, actively servoed air tables are now commercially available, although we

are not yet aware of their use in this field. Acoustic noise isolation can be achieved by ensuring

that all optical mounts are mechanically rigid, and placing these as close to the optical table as

feasible, thereby reducing resonance and vibration. Enclosing all the free-space optics will

further improve both mechanical and optical stability by reducing ambient air currents.

Thermal effects and both acoustical and mechanical vibration can be reduced by isolating the

optical trapping instrument from noisy power supplies and heat sources. Diode pumped solid

state lasers are well suited to this approach: since the laser head is fiber coupled to the pump

diodes, the power supply can be situated outside of the experimental room. A similar isolation

approach can be pursued with noisy computers or power supplies, and even illumination

sources, whose outputs can be brought to the instrument via an optical fiber. Further

improvements in noise performance and stability may require more substantial modifications,

such as acoustically isolated and temperature controlled experimental rooms situated in low-

vibration areas. The current generation of optical trapping instruments in our lab

59,138

are

housed in acoustically quiet cleanrooms with background noise less than the NC30 (OSHA)

rating, a noise level roughly equivalent to a quiet bedroom. In addition, these rooms are

temperature stabilized to better than ±0.5 K. The stability and noise suppression afforded by

this arrangement has paved the way for high-resolution recording of molecular motor

movement, down to the subnanometer level.

85–87

IV. CALIBRATION

A. Position calibration

Accurate position calibration lies at the heart of quantitative optical trapping. Precise

determination of the displacement of a trapped object from its equilibrium position is required

Neuman and Block Page 13

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

to compute the applied force (F=−αx, where F is the force, α is the optical trap stiffness, and

x is the displacement from the equilibrium trapping position), and permits direct measurement

of nanometer-scale motion. Several methods of calibrating the response of a position detector

have been developed. The choice of method will depend on the position detection scheme, the

ability to move the trap and/or the stage, the desired accuracy, and the expected direction and

magnitude of motion in the optical trap during an experiment. The most straightforward

position calibration method relies on moving a bead through a known displacement across the

detector region while simultaneously recording the output signal. This operation can be

performed either with a stuck bead moved by a calibrated displacement of the stage, or with a

trapped bead moved with a calibrated displacement of a steerable trap.

Position determination using a movable trap relies on initial calibration of the motion of the

trap itself in the specimen plane against beam deflection, using AODs or deflecting mirrors.

This is readily achieved by video tracking a trapped bead as the beam is moved.

Video

tracking records can be converted to absolute distance by calibrating the charge coupled device

(CCD) camera pixels with a ruled stage micrometer (10 μm divisions or finer),

49,50

or by

video tracking the motion of a stuck bead with a fully calibrated piezoelectric stage.

Once

the relationship between beam deflection and trap position is established, the detector can then

be calibrated in one or both lateral dimensions by simply moving a trapped object through the

detector active area and recording the position signal.

50,59,81

Adequate two-dimensional

calibration may often be obtained by moving the bead along two orthogonal axes in an “X”

pattern. However, a more complete calibration requires raster scanning the trapped bead to

cover the entire active region of the sensor.

Figure 6 displays the two-dimensional detector

calibration for a 0.6 μm bead, raster scanned over the detector region using an AOD-driven

optical trap. A movable optical trap is typically used with either an imaging position detector,

or a second low-power laser for laser-based detection (described above). Calibrating by moving

the trap, however, offers several advantages. Position calibration can be performed individually

for each object trapped, which eliminates errors arising from differences among nominally

identical particles, such as uniform polystyrene beads, which may exhibit up to a 5% coefficient

of variation in diameter. Furthermore, nonspherical or nonidentical objects, such as bacteria

or irregularly shaped particles, can be calibrated on an individual basis prior to (or after) an

experimental measurement. Because the object is trapped when it is calibrated, the calibration

and detection necessarily take place in the same axial plane, which precludes calibration errors

arising from the slight axial dependence of the lateral position signals.

Laser-based detection used in conjunction with a movable trap affords additional advantages.

Because the trapping and detection lasers are separate, the focal position of the two can be

moved relative to one another in the axial dimension. The maximum lateral sensitivity and

minimum variation of lateral sensitivity with axial position occur at the focus of the detection

laser. The axial equilibrium position of a trapped object, however, lies above the focus due to

the scattering force. Since the detection and trapping lasers are uncoupled, the focus of the

detection laser can be made coincident with the axial position of the trapped object, thereby

maximizing the detector sensitivity while minimizing the axial dependence of the lateral

sensitivity.

An additional benefit to using an independent detection laser is that it can be

more weakly focused to a larger spot size, since it does not need to trap, thereby increasing the

usable detection range. Beyond the added complication and cost of building a movable trap,

calibrating with a movable trap has some important limitations. The calibration is limited to

the two lateral dimensions, which may be inadequate for experiments where the trapped bead

is displaced significantly in the axial dimension.

39,82

Due to the ~4–6-fold lower trap stiffness

in the axial dimension, a primarily lateral force pulling an object out of the trapping zone may

result in a significant axial displacement. In practice, this situation arises when the trapped

object is tethered to the surface of the trapping chamber, e.g., when a bead is attached by a

strand of DNA bound at its distal end to the coverglass.

39,82,88,135–137

Accurate

Neuman and Block Page 14

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

determinations of displacement and trapping force in such experiments require axial, as well

as lateral, position calibration.

Position calibration is most commonly accomplished by moving a bead fixed to the surface

through the detection region and recording the detector output as a function of position.

Traditionally, such calibrations were performed in one or two lateral dimensions. The advent

of servo-stabilized, 3D piezoelectric (pz) stages has made such calibrations more accurate,

easier to perform and—in conjunction with an improved theoretical understanding of the axial

position signal—has permitted a full 3D position calibration of an optical trap.

62–64

Whereas

full 3D calibration is useful for tracking the complete motion of an object, it is cumbersome

and unnecessary when applying forces within a plane defined by one lateral direction and the

optical axis. When the trapped object is tethered to the surface of the trapping chamber, for

example, it is sufficient to calibrate the axial and the single lateral dimension in which the force

is applied. Figure 7 displays the results of such a two-dimensional (“x–z”) position calibration

for a 0.5 μm bead stuck to the surface of the trapping chamber. The bead was stepped through

a raster scan pattern in x (lateral dimension) and z (axial dimension) while the position signals

were recorded. Using a stuck bead to calibrate the position detector has some limitations and

potential pitfalls. Because it is difficult, in general, to completely immobilize an initially

trapped particle on the surface, it is not feasible to calibrate every particle. Instead, an average

calibration derived from an ensemble of stuck beads must be measured. Furthermore, the stuck-

bead calibration technique precludes calibrating non-spherical or heterogeneous objects, unless

these can be attached to the surface (and stereospecifically so) prior to, or after, the experimental

measurements. Due to the axial dependence of the lateral position signals (“x–z crosstalk”),

using a stuck bead to calibrate only the lateral dimension is prone to systematic error. Without

axial position information, it is difficult to precisely match the axial position of a stuck bead

with the axial position of a trapped bead. Optically focusing on a bead cannot be accomplished

with an accuracy better than ~100 nm, which introduces uncertainty and error in lateral position

calibrations for which the axial position is set by focusing. Therefore, even when only the

lateral dimensions are being calibrated, it is useful to measure the axial position signal to ensure

that the calibration is carried out in the appropriate axial plane.

1. Absolute axial position and measurement of the focal shift—The absolute axial

position of a trapped object above the surface of the trapping chamber is an important

experimental parameter, because the hydrodynamic drag on an object varies nonlinearly with

its height above the surface, due to proximal wall effects (see below and Ref. 9). Absolute axial

position measurements may be especially important in situations where the system under

investigation is attached to the surface and to a trapped object, as is often the case in biological

applications. Force–extension relationships, for example, depend on the end-to-end extension

of the molecule, which can only be determined accurately when the axial position of the trapped

object with respect to the surface is known. Axial positioning of a trapped object depends on

finding the location of the surface of the chamber and moving the object relative to this surface

by a known amount. The problem is complicated by the focal shift that arises when focusing

through a planar interface between two mismatched indices of refraction e.g., between the

coverglass (n

glass

~ 1.5) and the aqueous medium (n

water

~ 1.3).

139–144

This shift introduces

a fixed scaling factor between a vertical motion of the chamber surface and the axial position

of the optical trap within the trapping chamber. The focal shift is easily computed from Snell’s

law for the case of paraxial rays, but it is neither straightforward to compute nor to measure

experimentally when high NA objectives are involved.

144

Absolute axial position

determination has previously been assessed using fluorescence induced by an evanescent wave,

131

by the analysis of interference or diffraction patterns captured with video,

113,145

through the change in hydrodynamic drag on a trapped particle as it approaches the surface.

These techniques suffer from the limited range of detectable motion for fluorescence-based

methods, and by the slow temporal response of video and drag-force-based measurements.

Neuman and Block Page 15

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The position detector sum signal (QPD or PSD output), which is proportional to the total

incident intensity at the back focal plane of the condenser, provides a convenient means of both

accurately locating the surface of the trapping chamber and measuring the focal shift. In

conjunction, these measurements permit absolute positioning of a trapped object with respect

to the trapping chamber surface. The detector sum signal as a function of axial stage position

for both a stuck bead and a trapped bead are shown in Fig. 8. The stuck bead trace represents

the axial position signal of a bead moving relative to the trap. As the bead moves through the

focus of the laser (marked on the figure), the phase of light scattered from the bead changes

by 180° relative to the unscattered light, modulating the intensity distribution at the back focal

plane of the condenser. The region between the extrema of the stuck-bead curve is well

described by the expression for axial sensitivity derived by Pralle and co-workers:

(

)

∝

(

1 +

(

)

sin tan

−1

(

) , (5)

where an overall scaling factor has been ignored, z is the axial displacement from the beam

waist, and z

= πw

/λ is the Raleigh length of the focus, with beam waist w

at wavelength

λ. The phase difference in the scattered light is described by the arctangent term, while the

prefactor describes the axial position dependent intensity of the scattered light. The fit returns

a value for the beam waist, w

=0.436 μm. The equilibrium axial position of a trapped bead

corresponds to a displacement of 0.379 μm from the laser focus. A stuck bead scan can also

be useful for determining when a free bead is forced onto the surface of the cover slip.

As a trapped bead is forced into contact with the surface of the chamber by the upward stage

motion, the free and stuck bead signals merge and eventually become indistinguishable (Fig.

8). The approximate location of the surface with respect to the position of a trapped bead can

be determined by finding the point at which both curves coincide. Brownian motion of the

trapped bead, however, will shift this point slightly, in a stiffness-dependent manner that will

introduce a small uncertainty in the measured position of the surface. The scattering peak in

Fig. 8, however, serves as an easily identifiable fiducial reference from which the trapped bead

can be moved an absolute distance by subsequent stage motion. In this manner, trapped particles

can be reproducibly positioned at a fixed (but uncertain) distance relative to the surface. In

order to obtain a precise location of the trapped particle above the surface, both the position of

the scattering peak with respect to the surface and the focal shift must be determined. This may

be accomplished, for example, by a one-time measurement of the drag on a trapped bead at a

series of positions above the scattering peak. The interaction of a sphere with the boundary

layer of water near a surface leads to an increase in the hydrodynamic drag β, which can be

estimated by Faxen’s law for the approximate drag on a sphere near a surface:

πηa

1 −

(

)

(

)

−

256

(

)

−

(

)

(6)

which depends only on the bead radius a, the distance above the surface h, and the viscosity

of the liquid η. By measuring the rolloff frequency or the displacement of the trapped bead as

the stage is oscillated (see below), the drag force can be determined at different axial stage

positions relative to the scattering peak and normalized to the calculated asymptotic value, the

Stokes drag coefficient, 6πηa. The resulting curve (Fig. 9) is described by a two parameter fit

to Eq. (6): a scaling parameter that represents the fractional focal shift and an offset parameter

related to the distance between the scattering peak and the coverglass surface. The fit

parameters from the curve in Fig. 9 allow absolute positioning of a trapped particle with respect

to the surface. The uncertainty in the axial position amounts to roughly 3% of the bead-surface

separation, with the residual uncertainty largely due to the estimate of the focal shift (which

Neuman and Block Page 16

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

leads to a relative rather than an absolute uncertainty). The position of the surface, calculated

from the fit parameters of Fig. 9, is indicated in Fig. 8. The focal shift was 0.82±0.02, i.e., the

vertical location of the laser focus changed by 82% of the vertical stage motion.

The periodic modulation of the axial position signal as a trapped bead is displaced from the

surface (Fig. 8) can be understood in terms of an étalon picture.

146

Backscattered light from

the trapped bead reflects from the surface and interferes with forward-scattered and unscattered

light in the back focal plane of the condenser. The phase difference between these two fields

includes a constant term that arises because of the Gouy phase and another term that depends

on the separation between the bead and the surface. The spatial frequency of the intensity

modulation is given by d =λ/(2n

), where d is the separation between the bead and the cover

slip, λ is the vacuum wavelength of the laser, and n

is the index of refraction of the medium.

This interference signal supplies a second and much more sensitive means to determine the

focal shift. The motion of the stage (d

) and motion of the focus (d

) are related through a scaling

parameter f

equal to the focal shift d

= f

. The interference signal is observed experimentally

by stage translations. The measured spatial frequency will be given by d

= λ/(2n

), which

can be rearranged to solve for the focal shift f

=λ/(2n

). The focal shift determined in this

manner was 0.799±0.002, which is within the uncertainty of the focal shift determined by

hydrodynamic drag measurements (Fig. 9). The true focal shift with a high NA lens is more

pronounced than the focal shift computed in the simple paraxial limit, given (from Snell’s law)

by the ratio of the indices of refraction: n

imm

=0.878 for the experimental conditions, where

is the index of the aqueous medium (1.33) and n

imm

is the index of the objective immersion

oil (1.515). The discrepancy should not be surprising, because the paraxial ray approximation

does not hold for the objectives used for optical trapping.

146

The interference method

employed to measure the focal shift is both easier and more accurate than the drag-force method

presented earlier.

2. Position calibration based on thermal motion—A simple method of calibrating the

position detector relies on the thermal motion of a bead of known size in the optical trap.

122

The one-sided power spectrum for a trapped bead is

(

) =

(

)

(7)

where S

( f) is in units of displacement

/Hz, k

is Boltzmann’s constant, T the absolute

temperature, β is the hydrodynamic drag coefficient of the object (e.g., β=6πηa for Stokes drag

on a sphere of radius a in a medium with viscosity η), and f

is the rolloff frequency, related

to the trap stiffness through f

= α(2πβ)

−1

for a stiffness α (see below). The detector, however,

measures the uncalibrated power spectrum S

νν

( f), which is related to the true power spectrum

by S

νν

(f) =ρ

·S

(f), where ρ represents the linear sensitivity of the detector (in volts/unit

distance). The sensitivity can be found by considering the product of the power spectrum and

the frequency squared S

(f)·f

, which asymptotically approaches the limit k

T(π

β)

−1

for f ≫

. Inserting the relationship between the displacement power spectrum and the uncalibrated

detector spectrum in this expression and rearranging gives

νν

(

)

. (8)

This calibration method has been shown to agree to within ~20% of the sensitivity measured

by more direct means, such as those discussed above.

122

An advantage to the method is that

it does not require any means of precisely moving a bead to calibrate the optical trap. However,

the calibration obtained by this method is valid only for small displacements, for which a linear

approximation to the position signal is valid. In addition, the system detection bandwidth must

Neuman and Block Page 17

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

be adequate to record accurately the complete power spectrum without distortion, particularly

in the high frequency regime. System bandwidth considerations are treated more fully in

conjunction with stiffness determination, discussed below.

B. Force calibration–stiffness determination

Forces in optical traps are rarely measured directly. Instead, the stiffness of the trap is first

determined, then used in conjunction with the measured displacement from the equilibrium

trap position to supply the force on an object through Hooke’s law: F=−αx, where F is the

applied force, α is the stiffness, and x is the displacement. Force calibration is thus reduced to

calibrating the trap stiffness and separately measuring the relative displacement of a trapped

object. A number of different methods of measuring trap stiffness, each with its attendant

strengths and drawbacks, have been implemented. We discuss several of these.

1. Power spectrum—When beads of known radius are trapped, the physics of Brownian

motion in a harmonic potential can be exploited to find the stiffness of the optical trap. The

one-sided power spectrum for the thermal fluctuations of a trapped object is given by Eq. (7),

which describes a Lorentzian. This power spectrum can be fit with an overall scaling factor

and a rolloff frequency, f

= α(2πβ)

−1

from which the trap stiffness (α) can be calculated if the

drag (β) on the particle is known (Fig. 10). For a free sphere of radius a in solution far from

any surfaces, the drag is given by the usual Stokes relation β=6πηa, where η is the viscosity

of the medium. For a bead trapped nearer the surface of the trapping chamber, additional drag

arises from wall effects and must be considered: Faxen’s law [Eq. (6)] is appropriate for

estimating the drag due to lateral motion. Axial stiffness is also measured via the power

spectrum of the axial position signal, but the corrections to the axial drag due to wall effects

are larger than those for the lateral drag. The drag on a sphere moving normal to a surface

147

sinh

∑

∞

(

+ 1)

− 1)(2

+ 3)

2 sinh (2

+ 1)

+ (2

+ 1) sinh 2

4sinh

(

)

− (2

+ 1)

sinh

− 1 ,

(9)

where

= cosh

−1

(

)

= ln

{

(

)

− 1

}

h is the height of the center of the sphere above the surface, and β

=6πηa is the Stokes drag.

The sum converges fairly quickly and ~10 terms are required to achieve accurate results.

Whereas it is tempting to measure trap stiffness well away from surfaces to minimize

hydrodynamic effects, spherical aberrations in the focused light will tend to degrade the optical

trap deeper in solution, particularly in the axial dimension. Spherical aberrations lead to both

a reduction in peak intensity and a smearing-out of the focal light distribution in the axial

dimension.

Determining the stiffness of the optical trap by the power spectrum method requires a detector

system with sufficient bandwidth to record faithfully the power spectrum well beyond the

rolloff frequency (typically, by more than 1 order of magnitude). Lowpass filtering of the

detector output signal, even at frequencies beyond the apparent rolloff leads directly to a

numerical underestimate of the rolloff frequency and thereby to the stiffness of the optical trap.

Errors introduced by low pass filtering become more severe as the rolloff frequency of the trap

approaches the rolloff frequency of the electrical filter. Since the trap stiffness is determined

Neuman and Block Page 18

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

solely from the rolloff of the Lorentzian power spectrum, this method is independent of the

position calibration, per se. In addition to determining the stiffness, the power spectrum of a

trapped bead serves as a powerful diagnostic tool for optical trapping instruments: alignment

errors of either the optical trap or the position detection system lead to non-Lorentzian power

spectra, which are easily scored, and extraneous sources of instrument noise can generate

additional peaks in the power spectrum.

The measurement and accurate fitting of power spectra to characterize trap stiffness was

recently investigated by Berg-Sørensen and Flyvbjerg,

148,149

who developed an improved

expression for the power spectrum that incorporates several previously ignored corrections,

including the frequency dependence of the drag on the sphere, based on an extension of Faxen’s

law for an oscillating sphere [Faxen’s law, Eq. (6), only holds strictly in the limit of constant

velocity]. These extra terms encapsulate the relevant physics for a sphere moving in a harmonic

potential with viscous damping. In addition to this correction, the effects of finite sampling

frequency and signal filtering during data acquisition (due to electronic filters or parasitic

filtering by the photosensor) were included in fitting the experimental power spectrum. The

resulting fits determine the trap stiffness with an uncertainty of ~1% and accurately describe

the shape of the measured spectra. This work underscores the importance of characterizing and

correcting the frequency response of the position detection system to obtain accurate stiffness

measurements. Figure 10 illustrates a comparison between the fit obtained with the improved

fitting routine and an uncorrected fit.

The power spectrum of a trapped bead can also be used to monitor the sample heating due to

partial absorption of the trapping laser light. Heating of the trapping medium explicitly changes

the thermal kinetic energy term (k

T) in the power spectrum [Eq. (7)] and implicitly changes

the drag term as well, β=6πη(T)a, through its dependence on viscosity, which is highly

temperature dependent. Peterman and co-workers were able to assess the temperature increase

as a function of trapping laser power by determining the dependence of the Lorentzian fit

parameters on laser power.

100

2. Equipartition—The thermal fluctuations of a trapped object can also be used to obtain the

trap stiffness through the Equipartition theorem. For an object in a harmonic potential with

stiffness α:

α x

(10)

where k

is Boltzmann’s constant, T is absolute temperature, and x is the displacement of the

particle from its trapped equilibrium position. Thus, by measuring the positional variance of a

trapped object, the stiffness can be determined. The variance ‹x

› is intimately connected to

the power spectrum, of course: it equals the integral of the position power spectrum, i.e., the

spectrum recorded by a calibrated detector. Besides its simplicity, a primary advantage of the

Equipartition method is that it does not depend explicitly on the viscous drag of the trapped

particle. Thus, the shape of the particle, its height above the surface, and the viscosity of the

medium need not be known to measure the trap stiffness (although, in fairness, both the particle

shape and the optical properties of the medium will influence the position calibration itself).

The bandwidth requirements of the position detection system are the same as for the power

spectral approach, with the additional requirement that the detector must be calibrated. Unlike

the power spectral method however, the variance method does not provide additional

information about the optical trap or the detection system. For this reason, care should be taken

when measuring the stiffness with the Equipartition method. Because variance is an

intrinsically biased estimator (it is derived from the square of a quantity, and is therefore always

positive), any added noise and drift in position measurements serve only to increase the overall

Neuman and Block Page 19

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

variance, thereby decreasing the apparent stiffness estimate. In contrast, low pass filtering of

the position signal results in a lower variance and an apparent increase in stiffness.

3. Optical potential analysis—A straightforward extension of the Equipartition method

involves determining the complete distribution of particle positions visited due to thermal

motions, rather than simply the variance of that distribution. The probability for the

displacement of a trapped object in a potential well will be given by a Boltzmann distribution

(

)

∝

exp

(

−

(

)

= exp

(

−

αx

)

, (11)

where U(x) is the potential energy and k

T is the thermal energy. When the potential is

harmonic, this distribution is a simple Gaussian parametrized by the trap stiffness α. When the

potential is anharmonic, the position histogram can be used, in principle, to characterize the

shape of the trapping potential by taking the logarithm and solving for U(x). In practice, this

approach is not especially useful without a considerable body of low-noise/low-drift position

data, since the wings of the position histogram—which carry the most revealing information

about the potential—hold the fewest counts and therefore have the highest relative uncertainty.

4. Drag force method—The most direct method of determining trap stiffness is to measure

the displacement of a trapped bead from its equilibrium position in response to viscous forces

produced by the medium, generated by moving the stage in a regular triangle wave or sinusoidal

pattern. Since forces arise from the hydrodynamics of the trapped object, the drag coefficient,

including any surface proximity corrections, must be known. For the case of a sinusoidal

driving force of amplitude A

and frequency f, the motion of the bead is

(

) =

exp

−

πft

−

) ,

= − tan

−1

(

(12)

where f

is the characteristic rolloff frequency (above), and ϕ is the phase delay. Both the

amplitude and the phase of the bead motion can be used to provide a measure of trap stiffness.

A triangular driving force of amplitude A

and frequency f results in a square wave of force

being applied to the bead. For each period of the motion the bead trajectory is

(

) =

βA

1 − exp

(

−

)

(13)

where α is the trap stiffness and β is the drag coefficient of the bead, including Faxen’s law

corrections. Due to the finite response time of the stage, the exponential damping term is

convolved with the response time of the stage. Therefore, only the asymptotic value (βA

2α) should be used to obtain a reliable estimate of trap stiffness. Drag-force measurements are

slow compared with the thermal motion of the particle, so the bandwidth requirements of the

detection system are significantly relaxed. Increasing the amplitude or the frequency of the

stage motion generates larger displacements of the trapped bead. By measuring the stiffness

as a function of bead displacement, the linear region of the trap over which the stiffness is

constant can be easily determined.

A variation on the drag force method of stiffness calibration, sometimes called step response

calibration, involves rapidly displacing the trap by a small, fixed offset and recording the

Neuman and Block Page 20

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

subsequent trajectory of the bead. The bead will return to its equilibrium position in an

exponentially damped manner, with a time constant of α/β as in Eq. (13).

5. Direct measurement of optical force—The lateral trapping force arises from the

momentum transfer from the incident laser light to the trapped object, which leads to a change

in the direction of the scattered light (Fig. 1). Measuring the deflection of the scattered laser

beam with a QPD or other position sensitive detector therefore permits direct measurement of

the momentum transfer, and hence the force, applied to the trapped object—assuming that all

the scattered light can be collected.

38,57,104

An expression relating the applied force to the

beam deflection was presented by Smith et al.:

F=I/c·(NA)·X/R

where F is the force, I is

the intensity of the laser beam, c is the speed of light, NA is the numerical aperture, X is the

deflection of the light, and R

is the radius of the back aperture of the microscope objective.

In principle, this approach is applicable to any optical trapping configuration. However,

because it necessitates measuring the total intensity of scattered light, it has only been

implemented for relatively low NA, counter-propagating optical traps, where the microscope

objective entrance pupils are underfilled. In single-beam optical traps, it is impractical to collect

the entirety of the scattered light, owing to the higher objective NA combined with an optical

design that overfills the objective entrance pupil.

6. Axial dependence of lateral stiffness—Three-dimensional position detection

facilitates measurement of the axial stiffness and mapping of the lateral stiffness as a function

of axial position in the trap. Due to the high refractive index of polystyrene beads typically

used in optical trapping studies, there is a correspondingly large scattering force in the axial

direction. Consequently, the axial equilibrium position of a trapped polystyrene bead tends to

lie well beyond the focus, where the lateral intensity gradient—and hence the lateral stiffness

—are significantly reduced from their values at the focus. In experiments in which beads are

displaced from the axial equilibrium position, the change in lateral trapping strength can be

significant. The variation of lateral stiffness as a function of axial position was explored using

beads tethered by DNA (1.6 μm) to the surface of the flow chamber (Fig. 11, inset). Tethered

beads were trapped and the attachment point of the tether was determined and centered on the

optical axis.

The bead was then pulled vertically through the trap, i.e., along the axial

dimension, by lowering the stage in 20 nm increments. At each position, the lateral stiffness

of the trap was ascertained by recording its variance, using the Equipartition method. The axial

force applied to the bead tether can increase the apparent lateral stiffness, and this effect can

be computed by treating the tethered bead as a simple inverted pendulum.

150,151

In practice,

the measured increase in lateral stiffness (given by α

= F

/l, where α

is the lateral stiffness,

is the axial force on the bead, and l is the length of the tether) resulted in less than a 3%

correction to the stiffness and was thereafter ignored in the analysis. An average of 12

measurements is shown in Fig. 11, along with a fit to the lateral stiffness based on a simple

dipole and zero-order Gaussian beam model.

152

(

) =

(

)

(

− 1

+ 2

)(

1 +

(

)

−2

(14)

where n

is the index of refraction of the medium, p is the laser power in the specimen plane,

c is the speed of light, m is the ratio of the indices of refraction of the bead and the medium,

and w

, z and z

are the beam diameter at the waist, the axial displacement of the particle relative

to the focus, and the Raleigh range, respectively (as previously defined). The data are well fit

by this model with the exception of the laser power, which was sixfold lower than the actual

power estimated in the specimen plane. A significant discrepancy was anticipated since it had

been previously shown that for particle sizes on the order of the beam waist, the dipole

approximation greatly overestimates the trap stiffness.

152

The other two parameters of interest

Neuman and Block Page 21

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

are the beam waist and the equilibrium axial position of the bead in the trap. The fit returned

distances of 0.433 μm for the beam waist and 0.368 μm for the offset of the bead center from

the focal point. These values compare well with the values determined from the fit to the axial

position signal, which were 0.436 and 0.379 μm, respectively (see above). The variation in

lateral stiffness between the optical equilibrium position and the laser focus was substantial: a

factor of l.5 for the configuration studied.

V. TRANSCRIPTION STUDIED WITH A TWO-DIMENSIONAL STAGE-BASED

FORCE CLAMP

Our interest in extending position detection techniques to include the measurement of force

and displacement in the axial dimension arose from the study of processive nucleic acid

enzymes moving along DNA (Fig. 12). The experimental geometry, in which the enzyme

moving along the DNA pulls on a trapped bead, results in motion of the bead in a plane defined

by the direction of the lateral force and the axial dimension. In previous experiments, the effects

of axial motion had been calculated and estimated, but not directly measured or otherwise

calibrated.

39,82

Improvements afforded by three-dimensional piezoelectric stages permitted

the direct measurement of, and control over, the separate axial and lateral motions of the trapped

bead. We briefly describe this instrument and the implementation of a two-dimensional force

clamp to measure transcription by a single molecule of RNA polymerase.

The optical layout and detection scheme are illustrated in Fig. 13. An existing optical trap

39,

153

was modified by adding a normalizing photodetector to monitor the bleedthrough of the

trapping laser after a 45° dielectric mirror and a feedback-stabilized three-axis piezoelectric

stage (Physik Instrumente P-517.3CD and E710.3CD digital controller) to which the trapping

chamber was affixed. The optical trap was built around an inverted microscope (Axiovert 35,

Carl Zeiss) equipped with a polarized Nd:YLF laser (TFR, Spectra Physics, λ=1047 nm,

TEM

, 2.5 W) that is focused to a diffraction-limited spot through an objective (Plan Neofluar

100×, 1.3 NA oil immersion). Lateral position detection based on polarization interferometry

was implemented. The trapping laser passes through a Wollaston prism below the objective

producing two orthogonally polarized and slightly spatially separated spots in the specimen

plane; these act as a single trap. The light is recombined by a second Wollaston prism in the

condenser, after which it passes through a quarter-wave plate and a polarizing beamsplitter.

Two photodetectors measure the power in each polarization, and the difference between them,

normalized by their sum, supplies the lateral position signal. The sum of the detector signals

normalized by the incident laser power (from the normalizing detector) provides the axial

position signal.

62,64

The axial position signal is a small fraction of the total intensity and is

roughly comparable to the intensity noise of the laser. Normalizing the axial position signal

with reference to the instantaneous incident laser power, therefore, provides a significant

improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio. The two-dimensional position calibration of the

instrument, obtained by raster scanning a stuck bead, is shown in Fig. 7. Stiffness in the lateral

dimension was measured by a combination of rolloff, triangle-wave drag force, and variance

measurements. Stiffness in the axial dimension was measured using the rolloff method and

was found to be ~eightfold less than the lateral stiffness.

Single-molecule transcription experiments were carried out with an RNA polymerase

specifically attached to the beads and tethered to the surface of the trapping chamber via one

end of the template DNA (Fig. 12). Tethered beads were trapped, the surface position was

determined as described above, and the bead was centered over the attachment point of the

DNA tether, at a predetermined height. Once these initial conditions were established, the two-

dimensional force-clamp routine was begun. The stage was moved in both the axial and lateral

directions until the trapped bead was displaced by a predetermined distance from its

equilibrium position. Position signals were recorded at 2 kHz and boxcar averaged over 40

Neuman and Block Page 22

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

points to generate a 50 Hz signal that was used to control the motion of the stage. In this fashion,

the displacement of the bead in the trap, and hence the optical force, was held constant as the

tether length changed by micron-scale distances during RNA polymerase movement over the

DNA template. The motion of RNA polymerase on the DNA can be calculated from the motion

of the stage (Fig. 14). Periods of constant motion interrupted by pauses of variable duration

are readily observed in the single-molecule transcription trace shown in Fig. 14. Pauses as short

as 1 s are readily detected (Fig. 14, inset). Positional noise is on the order of 2 nm, while drift

is less than 0.2 nm/s.

Two-dimensional stage based force clamping affords a unique advantage. Since the stiffness

in both dimensions is known, the force vector on the bead is defined and constant during an

experiment. Tension in the DNA tether opposes the force on the bead, therefore the angle of

the DNA with respect to the surface of the trapping chamber is similarly defined and constant.

More importantly, the change in the DNA tether length can be calculated from the motion of

the stage in one dimension and the angle calculated from the force in both dimensions. As a

result, such measurements are insensitive to drift in the axial dimension, which is otherwise a

significant source of instrumental error.

VI. PROGRESS AND OVERVIEW OF OPTICAL TRAPPING THEORY

Optical trapping of dielectric particles is sufficiently complex and influenced by subtle,

difficult-to-quantify optical properties that theoretical calculations may never replace direct

calibration. That said, recent theoretical work has made significant progress towards a more

complete description of optical trapping and three-dimensional position detection based on

scattered light. Refined theories permit a more realistic assessment of both the capabilities and

the limitations of an optical trapping instrument, and may help to guide future designs and

optimizations.

Theoretical expressions for optical forces in the extreme cases of Mie particles (a ≫ λ, a is

the sphere radius) and Raleigh particle (a ≪ λ) have been available for some time. Ashkin

calculated the forces on a dielectric sphere in the ray-optic regime for both the TEM

and the

TEM

* (“donut mode”) intensity profiles.

Ray-optics calculations are valid for sphere

diameters greater than ~10λ, where optical forces become independent of the size of the sphere.

At the other extreme, Chaumet and Nieto-Vesperinas obtained an expression for the total time

averaged force on a sphere in the Rayleigh regime

154

(

)

αE

∂

(

)

(15)

where

(1 −

)

−1

is a generalized polarizability that includes a damping term, E

is the complex magnitude of the electric field, α

is the polarizability of a sphere given by Eq.

(4), and k is the wave number of the trapping laser. This expression encapsulates the separate

expressions for the scattering and gradient components of the optical force [Eqs. (1) and (3)]

and can be applied to the description of optical forces on larger particles through the use of the

coupled dipole method.

155

In earlier work, Harada and Asakura calculated the forces on a

dielectric sphere illuminated by a moderately focused Gaussian laser beam in the Rayleigh

regime by treating the sphere as a simple dipole.

152

The Raleigh theory predicts forces

comparable to those calculated with the more complete generalized Lorenz–Mie theory

(GLMT) for spheres of diameter up to ~w

(the laser beam waist) in the lateral dimension, but

only up to ~0.4λ in the axial dimension.

152

More general electrodynamic theories have been

applied to solve for the case of spheres of diameter ~λ trapped with tightly focused beams. One

approach has been to generalize the Lorenz–Mie theory describing the scattering of a plane

wave by a sphere to the case of Gaussian beams. Barton and co-workers applied fifth-order

Neuman and Block Page 23

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

corrections to the fundamental Gaussian beam to derive the incident and scattered fields from

a sphere, which enabled the force to be calculated by means of the Maxwell stress tensor.

76,

An equivalent approach, implemented by Gouesbet and coworkers, expands the incident

beam in an infinite series of beam shape parameters from which radiation pressure cross

sections can be computed.

80,156

Trapping forces and efficiencies predicted by these theories

are found to be in reasonable agreement with experimental values.

157–159

More recently,

Rohrbach and co-workers extended the Raleigh theory to larger particles through the inclusion

of second-order scattering terms, valid for spheres that introduce a phase shift, k

(Δn)D, less

than π/3, where k

=2π/λ

is the vacuum wave number, Δn=(n

− n

) is the difference in

refractive index between the particle and the medium, and D is the diameter of the sphere.

65,

For polystyrene beads (n

=1.57) in water (n

=1.33), this amounts to a maximum particle

size of ~0.7λ. In this approach, the incident field is expanded in plane waves, which permits

the inclusion of apodization and aberration transformations, and the forces are calculated

directly from the scattering of the field by the dipole without resorting to the stress tensor

approach. Computed forces and trapping efficiencies compare well with those predicted by

GLMT,

and the effects of spherical aberration have been explored.

Since the second-order

Raleigh theory calculates the scattered and unscattered waves, the far field interference pattern,

which is the basis of the three-dimensional position detection described above, is readily

calculated.

63,64

VII. NOVEL OPTICAL TRAPPING APPROACHES

Optical trapping (OT) has now developed into an active and diverse field of study. Space

constraints preclude a complete survey the field, so we have chosen to focus on a small number

of recent developments that seem particularly promising for future applications of the

technology.

A. Combined optical trapping and single-molecule fluorescence

Combining the complementary techniques of OT and single-molecule fluorescence (SMF)

presents significant technological challenges. Difficulties arise from the roughly 15 orders of

magnitude difference between the enormous flux of infrared light associated with a typical

trapping laser (sufficient to bleach many varieties of fluorescent dye through multiphoton

excitation) compared to the miniscule flux of visible light emitted by a single excited

fluorophore. These challenges have been met in a number of different ways. Funatsu and co-

workers built an apparatus in which the two techniques were employed sequentially, but not

simultaneously.

160

In a separate development, Ishijima and co-workers were able to trap beads

attached to the ends of a long (5–10 μm) actin filament while simultaneously monitoring the

binding of fluorescent Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecules to a myosin motor interacting

with the actin filament.

161

In this way, the coordination between the binding of ATP to myosin

and the mechanical motion of the actin filament (detected via the optical trap) was determined.

This experiment demonstrated the possibility of simultaneous—but not spatially coincident—

OT and SMF in the same microscope field of view. In a more recent development, both

simultaneous and spatially coincident OT and SMF have been achieved, and used to measure

the mechanical forces required to unzip short duplex regions [15 base pair (bp)] of double-

stranded DNA.

138

Dye-labeled hybrids were attached via a long (~1000 bp) DNA “handle”

to a polystyrene bead at one end (using the 3′ end of one strand) and to the coverglass surface

at the other (using the 5′ end of the complementary stand). In one experiment, the adjacent

terminal ends of the two strands of the DNA hybrid were each labeled with

tetramethylrhodamine (TAMRA) molecules. Due to their physical proximity, these dyes self-

quenched (the quenching range for TAMRA is ~1 nm). The DNA hybrid was then mechanically

disrupted (“unzipped”) by applying a force ramp to the bead while the fluorescence signal was

monitored. The point of mechanical rupture detected with the optical trap was coincident with

Neuman and Block Page 24

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

a stepwise increase in the fluorescence signal, as the two dyes separated, leaving behind a dye

attached by one DNA strand to the coverglass surface, as the partner dye was removed with

the DNA strand attached to the bead. Control experiments with fluorescent dyes attached to

either, but not both, DNA strands verified that the abrupt mechanical transition was specific

for the rupture of the DNA hybrid and not, for example, due to breakage of the linkages holding

the DNA to the bead or the coverglass surface.

B. Optical rotation and torque

Trapping transparent microspheres with a focused Gaussian laser beam in TEM

mode

produces a rotationally symmetric trap that does not exert torque. However, several methods

have been developed to induce the rotation of trapped objects.

20,52,162

Just as the change of

linear momentum due to refraction of light leads to the production of force, a change in angular

momentum leads to torque. Circularly polarized light carries spin angular momentum, of

course, and propagating optical beams can also be produced that carry significant amounts of

orbital angular momentum, e.g., Laguerre–Gaussian modes.

163

Each photon in such a mode

carries (σ+l)Ħ of angular momentum, where σ represents the spin angular momentum arising

from the polarization state of the light and l is the orbital angular momentum carried by the

light pattern. The angular momentum conveyed by the circular polarization alone, estimated

at ~10 pN nm/s per mW of 1064 nm light, can be significantly augmented through the use of

modes that carry even larger amounts of orbital angular momentum.

164

Transfer of both orbital

and spin angular momentum to trapped objects has been demonstrated for absorbing particles.

102,165

Transfer of spin angular momentum has been observed for birefringent particles of

crushed calcite,

166

and for more uniform microfabricated birefringent objects.

167,168

Friese

and coworkers derived the following expression for the torque on a birefringent particle:

166

{

1 − cos (

(

−

))

}

sin 2

− sin (

(

−

)) cos 2

sin 2

(16)

where ɛ is the permittivity, E

is the amplitude of the electric field, ω is the angular frequency

of the light, ϕ describes the ellipticity of the light (plane polarized, ϕ=0; circularly polarized,

ϕ=π/4), θ represents the angle between the fast axis of the quarter-wave plate producing the

elliptically polarized light and the optic axis of the birefringent particle, k is the vacuum wave

number (2π/λ), and n

and n

are the ordinary and extraordinary indices of refraction of the

birefringent material, respectively. Theoretically, all the spin angular momentum carried in a

circularly polarized laser beam can be transferred to a trapped object when it acts as a perfect

half-wave plate, i.e., ϕ=π/4 and kd(n

− n

)=π. For the case of plane polarized light, there is a

restoring torque on the birefringent particle that aligns the fast axis of the particle with the

plane of polarization.

166

Rotation of the plane of polarization will induce rotation in a trapped

birefringent particle.

Whereas the transfer of optical angular momentum is a conceptually attractive means of

applying torque to optically trapped objects, several other techniques have been employed

towards the same end. In one scheme, a high order asymmetric mode, created by placing an

aperture in the far field of a laser beam, was used to trap red blood cells: these could be made

to spin by rotating the aperture.

169

A more sophisticated version of this same technique

involves interfering a Laguerre–Gaussian beam with a plane wave beam to produce a spiral

beam pattern.

170

By changing the relative phase of the two beams, the pattern can be made to

rotate, leading to rotation in an asymmetric trapped object.

Alternatively, the interference

of two Laguerre–Gaussian beams of opposite helicity (l and −l) creates 2l beams surrounding

the optical axis, which can be rotated by adjusting the polarization of one of the interfering

beams.

Additionally, a variety of small chiral objects, such as microfabricated “optical

Neuman and Block Page 25

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

propellers,” can be trapped and made to rotate in a symmetric Gaussian beam due to the optical

forces generated on asymmetrically oriented surfaces.

171–174

Rotation of trapped particles is most commonly monitored by video tracking, which is

effectively limited by frame rates to rotation speeds below ~15 Hz, and to visibly asymmetric

particles (i.e., microscopic objects of sufficient size and contrast to appear asymmetric in the

imaging modality used). Rotation rates up to 1 kHz have been measured by back focal plane

detection of trapped 0.83 μm beads sparsely labeled with 0.22 μm beads to make these optically

anisotropic.

175

Backscattered light from trapped, asymmetric particles has also been used to

measure rotation rates in excess of 300 Hz.

102,166

C. Holographic optical traps

Holograms and other types of diffractive optics have been used extensively for generating

complex, high-order optical trapping beams,

20,52,162,165,176

such as the Laguerre–Gaussian

modes discussed above. Diffractive optical devices may also be used to synthesize multiple

optical traps with arbitrary intensity profiles.

20,91,177–179

A diffractive element placed in a

plane optically conjugate to the back aperture of the microscope objective produces an intensity

distribution in the specimen plane that is the Fourier transform of the pattern imposed by the

element,

177

and several computational methods have been developed to derive the holographic

pattern required for any given intensity distribution in the specimen plane.

91,92,180

Generally

speaking, diffractive elements modulate both the amplitude and the phase of the incident light.

Optical throughput can be maximized by employing diffractive optics that primarily modify

the phase but not the amplitude of the incident light, termed kinoforms.

Computer-generated

phase masks can also be etched onto a glass substrate using standard photolithographic

techniques, producing arbitrary, but fixed, optical traps.

Reicherter and co-workers extended the usefulness of holographic optical trapping techniques

by generating three independently movable donut-mode trapping beams with an addressable

liquid crystal spatial light modulator (SLM).

181

Improvements in SLM technology and real-

time hologram calculation algorithms have been implemented, allowing the creation of an array

of up to 400 optical traps, in addition to the creation and three-dimensional manipulation of

multiple, high order, trapping beams.

92,182,183

Multiple optical traps can also be generated

by time sharing, using rapid-scanning techniques based on AODs or galvo mirrors,

49,50

but

these are typically formed in just one or two axial planes,

184

and they are limited in number.

Dynamic holographic optical tweezers can produce still more varied patterns, limited only by

the optical characteristics of the SLM and the computational time required to generate the

hologram. Currently, the practical update rate of a typical SLM is around 5 Hz, which limits

how quickly objects can be translated.

Furthermore, the number and size of the pixels in the

SLM restrict the complexity and the range of motion of generated optical traps,

while the

pixelation and discrete phase steps of the SLM result in diffractive losses. Faster refresh rates

(>30 Hz) in a holographic optical trap have recently been reported with a SLM based on

ferroelectric, as opposed to nematic, materials.

185

Further improvements in SLM technology

should expand the possible applications of dynamic, holographic optical traps.

VIII. PROSPECTS

The nearly 2 decades that have passed since Ashkin and co-workers invented the single beam,

gradient force optical trap have borne witness to a proliferation of innovations and applications.

The full potential of most of the more recent optical developments has yet to be realized. On

the biological front, the marriage of optical trapping with single-molecule fluorescence

methods

138

represents an exciting frontier with enormous potential. Thanks to steady

improvements in optical trap stability and photodetector sensitivity, the practical limit for

position measurements is now comparable to the distance subtended by a single base pair along

Neuman and Block Page 26

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

DNA, 3.4 Å. Improved spatiotemporal resolution is now permitting direct observations of

molecular-scale motions in individual nucleic acid enzymes, such as polymerases, heli-cases,

and nucleases.

86,87,186

The application of optical torque offers the ability to study rotary

motors, such as F

ATPase,

187

using rotational analogs of many of the same techniques

already applied to the study of linear motors, i.e., torque clamps and rotation clamps.

Moving

up in scale, the ability to generate and manipulate a myriad of optical traps dynamically using

holographic tweezers

20,92

opens up many potential applications, including cell sorting and

other types of high-throughput manipulation. More generally, as the field matures, optical

trapping instruments should no longer be confined to labs that build their own custom

apparatus, a change that should be driven by the increasing availability of sophisticated,

versatile commercial systems. The physics of optical trapping will continue to be explored in

its own right, and optical traps will be increasingly employed to study physical, as well as

biological, phenomena. In one ground-breaking example from the field of nonequilibrium

statistical mechanics, Jarzynski’s equality

188

—which relates the value of the equilibrium free

energy for a transition in a system to a nonequilibrium measure of the work performed—was

put to experimental test by mechanically unfolding RNA structures using optical forces.

189

Optical trapping techniques are increasingly being used in condensed matter physics to study

the behavior (including anomalous diffusive properties and excluded volume effects) of

colloids and suspensions,

and dynamic optical tweezers are particularly well suited for the

creation and evolution of large arrays of colloids in well-defined potentials.

As optical

trapping techniques continue to improve and become better established, these should pave the

way for some great new science in the 21st century, and we will be further indebted to the

genius of Ashkin.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank members of the Block Lab for advice, suggestions, and helpful discussions. In particular, Elio

Abbondanzieri helped with instrument construction and all aspects of data collection, Joshua Shaevitz supplied Fig.

6, and Megan Valentine and Michael Woodside supplied valuable comments on the manuscript. We also thank Henrik

Flyvbjerg, Kirstine Berg-Sørensen, and the members of their labs for sharing results in advance of publication, for

critical reading of the manuscript, and for help in preparing Fig. 10. Finally, we thank Megan Valentine, Grace Liou,

and Richard Neuman for critical reading of the manuscript.

References

1. Ashkin A. Phys Rev Lett 1970;24:156.

2. Ashkin A, Dziedzic JM. Appl Phys Lett 1971;19:283.

3. Ashkin A, et al. Opt Lett 1986;11:288.

4. Ashkin A. IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron 2000;6:841.

5. Chu S, et al. Phys Rev Lett 1986;57:314. [PubMed: 10034028]

6. Ashkin A, Dziedzic JM, Yamane T. Nature (London) 1987;330:769. [PubMed: 3320757]

7. Ashkin A, Dziedzic JM. Science 1987;235:1517. [PubMed: 3547653]

8. Lang MJ, Block SM. Am J Phys 2003;71:201. [PubMed: 16971965]

9. Svoboda K, Block SM. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 1994;23:247. [PubMed: 7919782]

10. Mehta AD, Finer JT, Spudich JA. Methods Enzymol 1998;298:436. [PubMed: 9751902]

11. Mehta AD, et al. Science 1999;283:1689. [PubMed: 10073927]

12. Kuo SC. Traffic 2001;2:757. [PubMed: 11733041]

13. Ishijima A, Yanagida T. Trends Biochem Sci 2001;26:438. [PubMed: 11440856]

14. Ishii Y, Ishijima A, Yanagida T. Trends Biotechnol 2001;19:211. [PubMed: 11356282]

15. Jeney S, Florin EL, Horber JK. Methods Mol Biol 2001;164:91. [PubMed: 11217619]

16. Khan S, Sheetz MP. Annu Rev Biochem 1997;66:785. [PubMed: 9242924]

17. Simmons R. Curr Biol 1996;6:392.

18. Bustamante C, Macosko JC, Wuite GJ. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2000;1:130. [PubMed: 11253365]

Neuman and Block Page 27

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

19. Wang MD. Curr Opin Biotechnol 1999;10:81. [PubMed: 10047511]

20. Grier DG. Nature (London) 2003;424:810. [PubMed: 12917694]

21. Grier DG. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 1997;2:264.

22. J. K. H. Horber, Atomic Force Microscopy in Cell Biology (Academic, San Diego, 2002), pp. 1–31.

23. Lowen H. J Phys: Condens Matter 2001;13:R415.

24. Bar-Ziv R, Moses E, Nelson P. Biophys J 1998;75:294. [PubMed: 9649388]

25. Korda PT, Taylor MB, Grier DG. Phys Rev Lett 2002;89:128301. [PubMed: 12225126]

26. Hough LA, Ou-Yang HD. Phys Rev E 2002;65:021906.

27. Lin BH, Yu J, Rice SA. Phys Rev E 2000;62:3909.

28. Crocker JC, Grier DG. Phys Rev Lett 1996;77:1897. [PubMed: 10063199]

29. Crocker JC, Grier DG. Phys Rev Lett 1994;73:352. [PubMed: 10057148]

30. Bustamante C, Bryant Z, Smith SB. Nature (London) 2003;421:423. [PubMed: 12540915]

31. Bustamante C, et al. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2000;10:279. [PubMed: 10851197]

32. Pope LH, Bennink ML, Greve J. J Muscle Res Cell Motil 2002;23:397. [PubMed: 12785093]

33. Allemand JF, Bensimon D, Croquette V. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2003;13:266. [PubMed: 12831877]

34. Janshoff A, et al. Angew Chem Int Ed 2000;39:3213.

35. Onoa B, et al. Science 2003;299:1892. [PubMed: 12649482]

36. Liphardt J, et al. Science 2001;292:733. [PubMed: 11326101]

37. Bryant Z, et al. Nature (London) 2003;424:338. [PubMed: 12867987]

38. Smith SB, Cui YJ, Bustamante C. Science 1996;271:795. [PubMed: 8628994]

39. Wang MD, et al. Biophys J 1997;72:1335. [PubMed: 9138579]

40. Perkins TT, et al. Science 1994;264:822. [PubMed: 8171336]

41. Perkins TT, Smith DE, Chu S. Science 1994;264:819. [PubMed: 8171335]

42. Perkins TT, et al. Science 1995;268:83. [PubMed: 7701345]

43. Wang K, Forbes JG, Jin AJ. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2001;77:1. [PubMed: 11473785]

44. Ashkin A. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997;94:4853. [PubMed: 9144154]

45. McGloin D, Garces-Chavez V, Dholakia K. Opt Lett 2003;28:657. [PubMed: 12703932]

46. MacDonald MP, et al. Science 2002;296:1101. [PubMed: 12004124]

47. Garces-Chavez V, et al. Nature (London) 2002;419:145. [PubMed: 12226659]

48. Paterson L, et al. Science 2001;292:912. [PubMed: 11340200]

49. Visscher K, Gross SP, Block SM. IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron 1996;2:1066.

50. Visscher K, Block SM. Methods Enzymol 1998;298:460. [PubMed: 9751903]

51. Molloy JE. Methods Cell Biol 1998;55:205. [PubMed: 9352519]

52. Molloy JE, Padgett MJ. Contemp Phys 2002;43:241.

53. Brouhard GJ, Schek HT III, Hunt AJ. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2003;50:121. [PubMed: 12617534]

54. M. P. Sheetz, in Laser Tweezers in Cell Biology. Methods in Cell Biology, edited by L. Wilson and

P. Matsudaira (Academic, San Diego, 1998), Vol. 55.

55. S. M. Block, in Noninvasive Techniques in Cell Biology, edited by J. K. Foskett and S. Grinstein

(Wiley-Liss, New York, 1990), pp. 375–402.

56. Rice SE, Purcell TJ, Spudich JA. Methods Enzymol 2003;361:112. [PubMed: 12624909]

57. Smith SB, Cui Y, Bustamante C. Methods Enzymol 2003;361:134. [PubMed: 12624910]

58. S. M. Block, in Constructing Optical Tweezers, Cell Biology: A Laboratory Manual, edited by D.

Spector, R. Goldman, and L. Leinward (Cold Spring Harbor Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 1998).

59. Lang MJ, et al. Biophys J 2002;83:491. [PubMed: 12080136]

60. Fallman E, Axner O. Appl Opt 1997;36:2107.

61. Peterman EJG, et al. Rev Sci Instrum 2003;74:3246.

62. Pralle A, et al. Microsc Res Tech 1999;44:378. [PubMed: 10090214]

63. Rohrbach A, Kress H, Stelzer EH. Opt Lett 2003;28:411. [PubMed: 12659263]

64. Rohrbach A, Stelzer EHK. J Appl Phys 2002;91:5474.

Neuman and Block Page 28

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

65. Rohrbach A, Stelzer EH. Appl Opt 2002;41:2494. [PubMed: 12009161]

66. Rohrbach A, Stelzer EH. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 2001;18:839. [PubMed: 11318334]

67. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York, 1975).

68. A. Ashkin, Methods in Cell Biology (Academic, San Diego, 1998), Vol. 55, pp. 1–27.

69. Ashkin A. Biophys J 1992;61:569.

70. Fallman E, Axner O. Appl Opt 2003;42:3915. [PubMed: 12868831]

71. O’Neill AT, Padgett MJ. Opt Commun 2001;193:45.

72. Simpson NB, et al. J Mod Opt 1998;45:1943.

73. Friese MEJ, et al. Appl Opt 1996;35:7112.

74. Almaas E, Brevik I. J Opt Soc Am B 1995;12:2429.

75. Barton JP. J Appl Phys 1988;64:1632.

76. Barton JP, Alexander DR. J Appl Phys 1989;66:2800.

77. Barton JP, Alexander DR, Schaub SA. J Appl Phys 1989;66:4594.

78. Zemanek P, Jonas A, Liska M. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 2002;19:1025. [PubMed:

11999957]

79. Gouesbet G, Grehan G. Atomization Sprays 2000;10:277.

80. Ren KF, Greha G, Gouesbet G. Opt Commun 1994;108:343.

81. Visscher K, Schnitzer MJ, Block SM. Nature (London) 1999;400:184. [PubMed: 10408448]

82. Wang MD, et al. Science 1998;282:902. [PubMed: 9794753]

83. Wuite GJ, et al. Nature (London) 2000;404:103. [PubMed: 10716452]

84. Rock RS, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:13655. [PubMed: 11707568]

85. Block SM, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003;100:2351. [PubMed: 12591957]

86. Perkins TT, et al. Science 2003;301:1914. [PubMed: 12947034]

87. Neuman KC, et al. Cell 2003;115:437. [PubMed: 14622598]

88. Adelman K, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:13538. [PubMed: 12370445]

89. http://www.cellrobotics.comhttp://www.cellrobotics.com

90. http://www.arryx.com/http://www.arryx.com/

91. Dufresne ER, et al. Rev Sci Instrum 2001;72:1810.

92. Curtis JE, Koss BA, Grier DG. Opt Commun 2002;207:169.

93. http://www.palm-mikrolaser.comhttp://www.palm-mikrolaser.com

94. Gross SP. Methods Enzymol 2003;361:162. [PubMed: 12624911]

95. Neuman KC, et al. Biophys J 1999;77:2856. [PubMed: 10545383]

96. Liang H, et al. Biophys J 1996;70:1529. [PubMed: 8785310]

97. Vorobjev IA, et al. Biophys J 1993;64:533. [PubMed: 8457677]

98. Ashkin A, Dziedzic JM. Ber Bunsenges Phys Chem Chem Phys 1989;93:254.

99. Liu Y, et al. Biophys J 1995;68:2137. [PubMed: 7612858]

100. Peterman EJG, Gittes F, Schmidt CF. Biophys J 2003;84:1308. [PubMed: 12547811]

101. Schonle A, Hell SW. Opt Lett 1998;23:325. [PubMed: 18084500]

102. Friese MEJ, et al. Phys Rev A 1996;54:1593. [PubMed: 9913630]

103. Wuite GJ, et al. Biophys J 2000;79:1155. [PubMed: 10920045]

104. Grange W, et al. Rev Sci Instrum 2002;73:2308.

105. S. Inoue and K. R. Spring, Video Microscopy: The Fundamentals, 2nd ed. (Plenum, New York,

1997).

106. Misawa H, et al. J Appl Phys 1991;70:3829.

107. Kuo SC, McGrath JL. Nature (London) 2000;407:1026. [PubMed: 11069185]

108. Kuo YL, et al. Arch Androl 2000;44:29. [PubMed: 10690762]

109. Yamada S, Wirtz D, Kuo SC. Biophys J 2000;78:1736. [PubMed: 10733956]

110. Cheezum MK, Walker WF, Guilford WH. Biophys J 2001;81:2378. [PubMed: 11566807]

111. Thompson RE, Larson DR, Webb WW. Biophys J 2002;82:2775. [PubMed: 11964263]

Neuman and Block Page 29

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

112. Crocker JC, Grier DG. J Colloid Interface Sci 1996;179:298.

113. Gosse C, Croquette V. Biophys J 2002;82:3314. [PubMed: 12023254]

114. Keller M, Schilling J, Sackmann E. Rev Sci Instrum 2001;72:3626.

115. V. Croquette (personal communication).

116. Finer JT, Simmons RM, Spudich JA. Nature (London) 1994;368:113. [PubMed: 8139653]

117. Molloy JE, et al. Biophys J 1995;68:S298.

118. Denk W, Webb WW. Appl Opt 1990;29:2382.

119. Svoboda K, et al. Nature (London) 1993;365:721. [PubMed: 8413650]

120. Gittes F, Schmidt CF. Opt Lett 1998;23:7. [PubMed: 18084394]

121. Gittes F, Schmidt CF. Biophys J 1998;74:A183.

122. Allersma MW, et al. Biophys J 1998;74:1074. [PubMed: 9533719]

123. Ghislain LP, Webb WW. Opt Lett 1993;18:1678.

124. Ghislain LP, Switz NA, Webb WW. Rev Sci Instrum 1994;65:2762.

125. Peters IM, et al. Rev Sci Instrum 1998;69:2762.

126. Friese MEJ, et al. Appl Opt 1999;38:6597.

127. Florin EL, et al. J Struct Biol 1997;119:202. [PubMed: 9245760]

128. Florin EL, Horber JKH, Stelzer EHK. Appl Phys Lett 1996;69:446.

129. Zhang ZX, et al. Appl Opt 1998;37:2766.

130. Jonas A, Zemanek P, Florin EL. Opt Lett 2001;26:1466. [PubMed: 18049636]

131. Sasaki K, Tsukima M, Masuhara H. Appl Phys Lett 1997;71:37.

132. Clapp AR, Ruta AG, Dickinson RB. Rev Sci Instrum 1999;70:2627.

133. A. E. Siegman, Lasers University Science Books (Sausalito, CA, 1986), p. 1283.

134. Berg-Sorensen K, et al. J Appl Phys 2003;93:3167.

135. Koch SJ, Wang MD. Phys Rev Lett 2003;91:028103. [PubMed: 12906513]

136. Brower-Toland BD, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:1960. [PubMed: 11854495]

137. Koch SJ, et al. Biophys J 2002;83:1098. [PubMed: 12124289]

138. Lang MJ, Fordyce PM, Block SM. J Biol 2003;2:6. [PubMed: 12733997]

139. Visser TD, Wiersma SH. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 1992;9:2034.

140. Wiersma SH, et al. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 1997;14:1482.

141. Wiersma SH, Visser TD. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 1996;13:320.

142. Carlsson K. J Microsc 1991;163:167.

143. Bartlett P, Henderson SI, Mitchell SJ. Philos Trans R Soc London, Ser A 2001;359:883.

144. Hell S, et al. J Microsc 1993;169:391.

145. Radler J, Sackmann E. Langmuir 1992;8:848.

146. K. C. Neuman, E. A. Abbondanzieri, and S. M. Block (unpublished).

147. Brenner H. Chem Eng Sci 1961;16:242.

148. Berg-Sørensen K, Flyvbjerg H. Rev Sci Instrum 2004;75:594.

149. Toliæ-Nørrelykke IM, Berg-Sørensen K, Flyvbjerg H. Comput Phys Commun 2004;159:225.

150. Strick TR, et al. Biophys J 1998;74:2016. [PubMed: 9545060]

151. Strick TR, et al. Science 1996;271:1835. [PubMed: 8596951]

152. Harada Y, Asakura T. Opt Commun 1996;124:529.

153. Svoboda K, Block SM. Cell 1994;77:773. [PubMed: 8205624]

154. Chaumet PC, Nieto-Vesperinas M. Opt Lett 2000;25:1065. [PubMed: 18064272]

155. Chaumet PC, Nieto–Vesperinas M. Phys Rev B 2000;61:4119.

156. Gouesbet G, Maheu B, Grehan G. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 1988;5:1427.

157. Nahmias YK, Odde DJ. Int J Quantum Chem 2002;38:131.

158. Wright WH, Sonek GJ, Berns MW. Appl Opt 1994;33:1735.

159. Wright WH, Sonek GJ, Berns MW. Appl Phys Lett 1993;63:715.

160. Funatsu T, et al. Biophys Chem 1997;68:63. [PubMed: 9468610]

Neuman and Block Page 30

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

161. Ishijima A, et al. Cell 1998;92:161. [PubMed: 9458041]

162. Dholakia K, Spalding G, MacDonald M. Phys World 2002;15:31.

163. Barnett SM, Allen L. Opt Commun 1994;110:670.

164. Allen L, et al. Phys Rev A 1992;45:8185. [PubMed: 9906912]

165. He H, et al. Phys Rev Lett 1995;75:826. [PubMed: 10060128]

166. Friese MEJ, et al. Nature (London) 1998;394:348.

167. Higurashi E, Sawada R, Ito T. J Micromech Microeng 2001;11:140.

168. Higurashi E, Sawada R, Ito T. Phys Rev E 1999;59:3676.

169. Sato S, Ishigure M, Inaba H. Electron Lett 1991;27:1831.

170. Padgett M, et al. Am J Phys 1996;64:77.

171. Higurashi E, et al. Appl Phys Lett 1994;64:2209.

172. Higurashi E, et al. J Appl Phys 1997;82:2773.

173. Gauthier RC. Appl Phys Lett 1995;67:2269.

174. Gauthier RC. Appl Opt 2001;40:1961.

175. Rowe AD, et al. J Mod Opt 2003;50:1539.

176. He H, Heckenberg NR, Rubinsztein-Dunlop H. J Mod Opt 1995;42:217.

177. Dufresne ER, Grier DG. Rev Sci Instrum 1998;69:1974.

178. Korda P, et al. Rev Sci Instrum 2002;73:1956.

179. Mueth DM, et al. Phys Rev Lett 1996;77:578. [PubMed: 10062846]

180. Liesener J, et al. Opt Commun 2000;185:77.

181. Reicherter M, et al. Opt Lett 1999;24:608. [PubMed: 18073798]

182. Curtis JE, Grier DG. Opt Lett 2003;28:872. [PubMed: 12816230]

183. Igasaki Y, et al. Opt Rev 1999;6:339.

184. van Blaaderen A, et al. Faraday Discuss 2003;123:107. [PubMed: 12638857]

185. Hossack WJ, et al. Opt Express 2003;11:2053.

186. Shaevitz JW, et al. Nature (London) 2003;426:684. [PubMed: 14634670]

187. Noji H, et al. Nature (London) 1997;386:299. [PubMed: 9069291]

188. Jarzynski C. Phys Rev Lett 1997;78:2690.

189. Liphardt J, et al. Science 2002;296:1832. [PubMed: 12052949]

Neuman and Block Page 31

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 1.

Ray optics description of the gradient force. (A) A transparent bead is illuminated by a parallel

beam of light with an intensity gradient increasing from left to right. Two representative rays

of light of different intensities (represented by black lines of different thickness) from the beam

are shown. The refraction of the rays by the bead changes the momentum of the photons, equal

to the change in the direction of the input and output rays. Conservation of momentum dictates

that the momentum of the bead changes by an equal but opposite amount, which results in the

forces depicted by gray arrows. The net force on the bead is to the right, in the direction of the

intensity gradient, and slightly down. (B) To form a stable trap, the light must be focused,

producing a three-dimensional intensity gradient. In this case, the bead is illuminated by a

focused beam of light with a radial intensity gradient. Two representative rays are again

refracted by the bead but the change in momentum in this instance leads to a net force towards

the focus. Gray arrows represent the forces. The lateral forces balance each other out and the

axial force is balanced by the scattering force (not shown), which decreases away from the

focus. If the bead moves in the focused beam, the imbalance of optical forces will draw it back

to the equilibrium position.

Neuman and Block Page 32

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 2.

Layout of a generic optical trap. The laser output beam usually requires expansion to overfill

the back aperture of the objective. For a Gaussian beam, the beam waist is chosen to roughly

match the objective back aperture. A simple Keplerian telescope is sufficient to expand the

beam (lenses L1 and L2). A second telescope, typically in a 1:1 configuration, is used for

manually steering the position of the optical trap in the specimen plane. If the telescope is built

such that the second lens, L4, images the first lens, L3, onto the back aperture of the objective,

then movement of L3 moves the optical trap in the specimen plane with minimal perturbation

of the beam. Because lens L3 is optically conjugate (conjugate planes are indicated by a cross-

hatched fill) to the back aperture of the objective, motion of L3 rotates the beam at the aperture,

which results in translation in the specimen plane with minimal beam clipping. If lens L3 is

not conjugate to the back aperture, then translating it leads to a combination of rotation and

translation at the aperture, thereby clipping the beam. Additionally, changing the spacing

between L3 and L4 changes the divergence of the light that enters the objective, and the axial

location of the laser focus. Thus, L3 provides manual three-dimensional control over the trap

position. The laser light is coupled into the objective by means of a dichroic mirror (DM1),

which reflects the laser wavelength, while transmitting the illumination wavelength. The laser

beam is brought to a focus by the objective, forming the optical trap. For back focal plane

position detection, the position detector is placed in a conjugate plane of the condenser back

aperture (condenser iris plane). Forward scattered light is collected by the condenser and

coupled onto the position detector by a second dichroic mirror (DM2). Trapped objects are

imaged with the objective onto a camera. Dynamic control over the trap position is achieved

by placing beam-steering optics in a conjugate plane to the objective back aperture, analogous

to the placement of the trap steering lens. For the case of beam-steering optics, the point about

which the beam is rotated should be imaged onto the back aperture of the objective.

Neuman and Block Page 33

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 3.

The wavelength dependence of photodamage in E. coli compared to Chinese hamster ovary

(CHO) cells. (Solid circles and solid line, left axis, half lethal dose time for E. coli cells

(LD

); open circles and dashed line, right axis, cloning efficiency in CHO cells determined

by Liang et al. (Ref. 96) (used with permission). Lines represent cubic spline fits to the data).

The cloning efficiency in CHO cells was determined after 5 min of trapping at 88 mW in the

specimen plane (error bars unavailable), selected to closely match to our experimental

conditions (100 mW in the specimen plane, errors shown as ± standard error in the mean).

Optical damage is minimized at 830 and 970 nm for both E. coli and CHO cells, whereas it is

most severe in the region between 870 and 930 nm (reprinted from Ref. 95).

Neuman and Block Page 34

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 4.

Microscope objective transmission curves. Transmission measurements were made by means

of the dual-objective method. Part numbers are cross-referenced in Table I. The uncertainty

associated with a measurement at any wavelength is ~5% (reprinted from Ref. 95).

Neuman and Block Page 35

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 5.

Comparison of position detector frequency response at 1064 nm. Normalized frequency

dependent response for a silicon quadrant photodiode (QPD) (QP50–6SD, Pacific Silicon

Sensor) (open circles), and a position sensitive detector (PSD), (DL100–7PCBA, Pacific

Silicon Sensor) (solid circles). 1064 nm laser light was modulated with an acousto-optic

modulator and the detector output was recorded with a digital sampling scope. The response

of the QPD was fit with the function: γ

+(1−γ

)[1+(f/f

)

]

−1

, which describes the effects of

diffusion of electron-hole pairs created outside the depletion layer (Ref. 134), where γ is the

fraction of light absorbed in the diode depletion layer and f

is the characteristic frequency

associated with light absorbed beyond the depletion layer. The fit returned an f

value of 11.1

kHz and a γ parameter of 0.44, which give an effective f

3dB

of 4.1 kHz, similar to values found

in Ref. 134 for silicon detectors. The QPD response was not well fit by a single pole filter

response curve. The PSD response, in contrast, was fit by a single pole filter function, returning

a rolloff frequency of 196 kHz. Extended frequency response at 1064 nm has also been reported

for InGaAs and fully depleted silicon photodiodes (Ref. 61).

Neuman and Block Page 36

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 6.

Lateral two-dimensional detector calibration (adapted from Ref. 59). Contour plot of the x

(solid lines) and y (dashed lines) detector response as a function of position for a 0.6 μm

polystyrene bead raster scanned through the detector laser focus by deflecting the trapping

laser with acousto-optic deflectors. The bead is moved in 20 nm steps with a dwell time of 50

ms per point while the position signals are recorded at 50 kHz and averaged over the dwell

time at each point. The x contour lines are spaced at 2 V intervals, from 8 V (leftmost contour)

to −8 V (rightmost contour). The y contour lines are spaced at 2 V intervals, from 8 V (bottom

contour) to −8 V (top contour). The detector response surfaces in both the x and y dimensions

are fit to fifth order two-dimensional polynomials over the shaded region, with less than 2 nm

residual root mean square (rms) error. Measurements are confined to the shaded region, where

the detector response is single valued.

Neuman and Block Page 37

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 7.

Axial two-dimensional detector calibration. Contour plot of the lateral (solid lines) and axial

(dashed lines) detector response as a function of x (lateral displacement) and z (axial

displacement) of a stuck 0.5 μm polystyrene bead moving through the laser focus. A stuck

bead was raster scanned in 20 nm steps in x and z. The detector signals were recorded at 4 kHz

and averaged over 100 ms at each point. The lateral contour lines are spaced at 1 V intervals,

from −9 V (leftmost contour) to 7 V (rightmost contour). The axial contour lines are spaced at

0.02 intervals (normalized units). Measurements are confined to the region of the calibration

shaded in gray, over which the surfaces of x and z positions as a function of lateral and axial

detector signals were fit to seventh order two-dimensional polynomial functions with less than

5 nm residual rms error.

Neuman and Block Page 38

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 8.

Axial position signals for a free (heavy dashed line) and stuck (light dashed line) bead as the

stage was scanned in the axial direction. All stage motion is relative to the scattering peak,

which is indicated on the right of the figure. The positions of the surface (measured) and the

focus [calculated from Eq. (5)] are indicated by vertical lines. The axial detection fit [Eq. (5)]

to the stuck bead trace is shown in the region around the focus as a heavy solid line.

Neuman and Block Page 39

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 9.

Normalized drag coefficient (β

/β, where β

is the Stokes drag on the sphere: 6πηa) as a

function of distance from the scattering peak. The normalized inverse drag coefficient (solid

circles) was determined through rolloff measurements and from the displacement of a trapped

bead as the stage was oscillated. The normalized inverse drag coefficient was fit to Faxen’s

law [Eq. (6)] with a height offset ɛ and scaling parameter δ, which is the fractional focal shift,

as the only free parameters: β

β =1−(9/16)×[aδ

−1

(z−ɛ)

−1

] + 1/8[aδ

−1

(z−ɛ)

−1

]

−(45/256)

[aδ

−1

(z−ɛ)

−1

]

−(1/16)[aδ

−1

(z−ɛ)

−1

]

, where a is the bead radius, z is the motion of the stage

relative to the scattering peak, β

is the Stoke’s drag on the bead, (6πηa), and β is the measured

drag coefficient. The fit returned a fractional focal shift δ of 0.82±0.02 and an offset ɛ of 161

nm. The position of the surface relative to the scattering peak is obtained by setting the position

of the bead center, δ(z−ɛ) equal to the bead radius a, which returns a stage position of 466 nm

above the scattering peak, as indicated in Fig. 8.

Neuman and Block Page 40

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 10.

Power spectrum of a trapped bead. Power spectrum of a 0.5 μm polystyrene bead trapped 1.2

μm above the surface of the trapping chamber recorded with a PSD (gray dots). The raw power

spectrum was averaged over 256 Hz windows on the frequency axis (black circles) and fit

(black line) to a Lorentzian [Eq. (7)] corrected for the effects of the antialiasing filter, frequency

dependent hydrodynamic effects, and finite sampling frequency, as described by Berg–

Sørensen and Flyvbjerg (Ref. 148). The rolloff frequency is 2.43 kHz, corresponding to a

stiffness of 0.08 pN/nm. For comparison the raw power spectrum was fit to an uncorrected

Lorentzian (dashed line), which returns a rolloff frequency of 2.17 kHz. Whereas the

discrepancies are on the order 10% for a relatively weak trap, they generally become more

important at higher rolloff frequencies.

Neuman and Block Page 41

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 11.

Axial dependence of lateral stiffness. The experimental geometry for these measurements is

depicted in the inset. A polystyrene bead is tethered to the surface of the cover glass through

a long DNA tether. The stage was moved in the negative z direction (axial), which pulls the

bead towards the laser focus, and the lateral stiffness was determined by measuring the lateral

variance of the bead. The data (solid circles) are fit with the expression for a simple dipole [Eq.

(14)], with the power in the specimen plane, the beam waist, and an axial offset as free

parameters.

Neuman and Block Page 42

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 12.

Cartoon of the experimental geometry (not to scale) for single-molecule transcription

experiment. Transcribing RNA polymerase with nascent RNA (gray strand) is attached to a

polystyrene bead. The upstream end of the duplex DNA (black strands) is attached to the

surface of a flowchamber mounted on a piezoelectric stage. The bead is held in the optical trap

at a predetermined position from the trap center, which results in a restoring force exerted on

the bead. During transcription, the position of the bead in the optical trap and hence the applied

force is maintained by moving the stage both horizontally and vertically to compensate for

motion of the polymerase molecule along the DNA (adapted from Ref. 87).

Neuman and Block Page 43

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 13.

The optical trapping interferometer. Light from a Nd:YLF laser passes through an acoustic

optical modulator (AOM), used to adjust the intensity, and is then coupled into a single-mode

polarization-maintaining optical fiber. Output from the fiber passes through a polarizer to

ensure a single polarization, through a 1:1 telescope and into the microscope where it passes

through the Wollaston prism and is focused in the specimen plane. The scattered and

unscattered light is collected by the condenser, is recombined in the second Wollaston prism,

then the two polarizations are split in a polarizing beamsplitter and detected by photodiodes A

and B. The bleedthrough on a turning mirror is measured by a photodiode (N) to record the

instantaneous intensity of the laser. The signals from the detector photodiodes and the

normalization diode are digitized and saved to disk. The normalized difference between the

two detectors (A and B) gives the lateral, x displacement, while the sum signal (A+B)

normalized by the total intensity (N) gives the axial, z displacement.

Neuman and Block Page 44

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

FIG. 14.

Two-dimensional, stage based force clamp. Position record of a single RNA polymerase

molecule transcribing a 3.5 kbp (1183 nm) DNA template under 18 pN of load. The x and z

position signals were low pass filtered at 1 kHz, digitized at 2 kHz, and boxcar averaged over

40 points to generate the 50 Hz feedback signals that controlled the motion of the piezoelectric

stage. Motion of the stage was corrected for the elastic compliance of the DNA (Ref. 39) to

recover the time-dependent contour length, which reflects the position of the RNA polymerase

on the template. Periods of roughly constant velocity are interrupted by pauses on multiple

timescales. Distinct pauses can be seen in the trace, while shorter pauses (~1 s) can be discerned

in the expanded region of the trace (inset: arrows).

Neuman and Block Page 45

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Neuman and Block Page 46

TABLE I

Transmission of microscope objectives, cross-referenced with Fig. 2.

Transmission (±5%)

Part No. Manufacturer Magnification/Tube length

(mm)/Numerical aperture

Type designation 830 (nm) 850 (nm) 990 (nm) 1064 (nm)

461832 Zeiss 63/160/1.2 Water Plan NeoFluar 66 65 64 64

506038 Leica 100/∞/1.4-0.7 Oil Plan Apo 58 56 54 53

85020 Nikon 60/160/1.4 Oil Plan Apo 54 51 17 40

93108 Nikon 60/∞/1.4 Oil Plan Apo CFI 59 54 13 39

93110 Nikon 100/∞/1.4 Oil Plan Apo CFI 50 47 35 32

93110IR Nikon 100/∞/1.4 Oil Plan Apo IR CFI 61 60 59 59

93144 Nikon 100/∞/1.3 Oil Plan Fluor CFI 67 68 — 61

Rev Sci Instrum. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2006 July 27.

Design of a wavelength-tunable optical tweezer using a graded-index multimode optical fiber

Preprint

Nov 2016

A wavelength-tunable Optical Fiber Tweezer (OFT) based on a Graded Index Multimode Fiber (GIMF) with a flat endface is proposed. It is shown that the design can support a trapping position which is far from the tip of the GIMF compared with other common optical tweezing methods, hence reducing the possibility of a contact between the trapped particle and the fiber tip. Moreover, because of the wavelength dependence of the GIMF design parameters such the Numerical Aperture (NA), the trapping position can become wavelength-dependent. Therefore, the trapping position can be tuned over a long range using a common wave-length tunable laser. The proposed OFT differs from previous fiber-based demonstrations by using a flat-endface fiber making the fabrication and experiment quite easier than previously proposed tapered-endface OFTs.

Single-beam dielectric-microsphere trapping with optical heterodyne detection

Preprint

Oct 2017

A technique to levitate and measure the three-dimensional position of micrometer-sized dielectric spheres with heterodyne detection is presented. The two radial degrees of freedom are measured by interfering light transmitted through the microsphere with a reference wavefront, while the axial degree of freedom is measured from the phase of the light reflected from the surface of the microsphere. This method pairs the simplicity and accessibility of single beam optical traps to a measurement of displacement that is intrinsically calibrated by the wavelength of the trapping light and has exceptional immunity to stray light. A theoretical shot noise limit of

1.3\times10^{-13}\,\text{m}/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}

for the radial degrees of freedom, and

3.0\times10^{-15} \, \text{m}/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}

for the axial degree of freedom can be obtained in the system described. The measured acceleration noise in the radial direction is

7.5\times10^{-5} \, (\text{m/s}^2)/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}

Radial and azimuthal quasi-bound states in the continuum for optical trapping

Article

Dec 2024
PHYS LETT A

Ultra-low power optical tweezers for indentation of tissues

Conference Paper

Jan 2024

Traditional optical tweezers rely on the use of continuous-wave laser sources with moderate to high optical powers for indenting cells which can lead to unwanted thermal effects. Here, we demonstrate that a femtosecond laser can provide optical tweezing of microparticles to indent tissues using an average power as low as 1 mW.

Multi-Particle sorting using signals from particles trapped by single optical fiber tweezers

Article

Dec 2024
OPT FIBER TECHNOL

Optomagnetic Micromirror Arrays for Mapping Large Area Stiffness Distributions of Biomimetic Materials

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024
SMALL

A new device termed “Optomagnetic Micromirror Arrays” (OMA) is demonstrated capable of mapping the stiffness distribution of biomimetic materials across a 5.1 mm × 7.2 mm field of view with cellular resolution. The OMA device comprises an array of 50 000 magnetic micromirrors with optical grating structures embedded beneath an elastic PDMS film, with biomimetic materials affixed on top. Illumination of a broadband white light beam onto these micromirrors results in the reflection of microscale rainbow light rays on each micromirror. When a magnetic field is applied, it causes each micromirror to tilt differently depending on the local stiffness of the biomimetic materials. Through imaging these micromirrors with low N.A. optics, a specific narrow band of reflection light rays from each micromirror is captured. Changing a micromirror's tilt angle also alters the color spectrum it reflects back to the imaging system and the color of the micromirror image it represents. As a result, OMA can infer the local stiffness of the biomimetic materials through the color change detected on each micromirror. OMA offers the potential for high‐throughput stiffness mapping at the tissue‐level while maintaining spatial resolution at the cellular level.

Optical trapping of coated microspheres

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2008
OPT EXPRESS

In an optical trap, micron-sized dielectric particles are held by a tightly focused laser beam. The optical force on the particle is composed of an attractive gradient force and a destabilizing scattering force. We hypothesized that using anti-reflection-coated microspheres would reduce scattering and lead to stronger trapping. We found that homogeneous silica and polystyrene microspheres had a sharp maximum trap stiffness at a diameter of around 800 nm—the trapping laser wavelength in water—and that a silica coating on a polystyrene microsphere was a substantial improvement for larger diameters. In addition, we noticed that homogeneous spheres of a correct size demonstrated anti-reflective properties. Our results quantitatively agreed with Mie scattering calculations and serve as a proof of principle. We used a DNA stretching experiment to confirm the large linear range in detection and force of the coated microspheres and performed a high-force motor protein assay. These measurements show that the surfaces of the coated microspheres are compatible with biophysical assays.

The Physics of micro- and nano-manipulation: Fundamentals and applications

Article

Nov 2024
PHYS REP

Accurate Drift-Invariant Single-Molecule Force Calibration Using the Hadamard Variance

Article

Oct 2024
BIOPHYS J

Recent Advancements in Nanophotonics for Optofluidics

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Optofluidics is dedicated to achieving integrated control of particles and fluid motion, particularly on the micrometer scale, by utilizing light to direct fluid flow and particle motion. This field has seen significant growth recently, driven by the concerted efforts of researchers across various scientific disciplines, notably for its successful applications in biomedical science. In this review, we explore a range of optofluidic architectures developed over the past decade, with a primary focus on mechanisms for precise control of micro and nanoscale biological objects and their applications in sensing. Regarding nanoparticle manipulation, we delve into mechanisms based on optical nanotweezers using nanolocalized light fields and light-based hybrid effects with dramatically improved performance and capabilities. In the context of- sensing, we emphasize those works that used optofluidics to aggregate molecules or particles to promote sensing and detection. Additionally, we highlight emerging research directions, encompassing both fundamental principles and practical applications in the field.

Molecular Biology Laboratory manual

Research

Full-text available

Oct 2017

Molecular Biology is a branch of biology that deals with the study of cellular components and their structure and functions. This laboratory manual contains 6 practical procedures that are linked together in a module, named as Mol_2017-1. It starts with Safety guidelines , and continues to micropipetting exercises. The last four lab practicals include DNA isolation, visualisation as well as digestion and in silico analysis {restriction mapping}. This is module is followed by two other modules which will be uploaded after this one's publication.

Diffraction of converging electromagnetic waves: erratum

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1993
J OPT SOC AM A

Generalized Lorenz-Mie theories, from past to future

Article

May 2000
ATOMIZATION SPRAY

We review the generalized Lorenz-Mie theories developed during the two last decades, describing the interaction between arbitrary-shaped beams (generic laser beams) and some regular particles, as well as the applications which have been implemented. We take this opportunity to attempt a forecasting of further studies that should be also developed in the same line of research.

AUTOSTAGE SPERM TRACING SYSTEM FOR SEMEN EVALUATION

Article

Jan 2000

Pao-Lin Kuo

To overcome the limitation of the microscope field, the study proposed an autostage sperm tracing system (ASTS), which could trace a particular sperm for a long time and distance. The ASTS was constructed by assembling a commercial microscope, an image frame grabber, a personal computer, and a motorized stage. Its performance was tested by evaluating 6 semen samples and by comparing the evaluation with those of other semen evaluations. The ASTS broke through the limitation of the microscope field and traced a particular sperm as long as possible. It analyzed the sperm track and calculated the motility parameters, such as curvilinear velocity (Vcl), straight-line velocity (Vsl), and linearity (Lin). The sperm quality was then evaluated in real time, and the user could decide to capture or abandon a particular sperm in the IVF. The ASTS enables users to evaluate sperm progression for a long time and to have the global quality of a particular sperm in real time. Its open structure has the flexibility for mic...

Force and Velocity Measured for Single Molecules of RNA Polymerase

Article

Oct 1998

Michelle D. Wang

RNA polymerase (RNAP) moves along DNA while carrying out transcription, acting as a molecular motor. Transcriptional velocities for single molecules of Escherichia coli RNAP were measured as progressively larger forces were applied by a feedback-controlled optical trap. The shapes of RNAP force-velocity curves are distinct from those of the motor enzymes myosin or kinesin, and indicate that biochemical steps limiting transcription rates at low loads do not generate movement. Modeling the data suggests that high loads may halt RNAP by promoting a structural change which moves all or part of the enzyme backwards through a comparatively large distance, corresponding to 5 to 10 base pairs. This contrasts with previous models that assumed force acts directly upon a single-base translocation step.

Biological Applications of Optical Forces

Article

Jan 1994
ANNU REV BIOPH BIOM

S. Karel

Imaging and nano-manipulation of single motor molecules.

Article

Jan 1996
Biophysics

Takashi Funatsu

Single fluorescent dye molecules were visualized at video-rate in aqueous solution by using total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy. This approach enabled us to directly image single myosin molecules and detect individual ATP turnover reactions. This approach also can be used to directly image single fluorescently-labeled kinesin molecules moving on an axoneme. The methods can be extended to simultaneous measurements of the ATPase reaction and force/movement by single motor protein molecules. This should provide a clear answer to the fundamental problem of how mechanical reaction is coupled to ATPase reaction.

Methods of Digital Video Microscopy for Colloidal Studies

Article

Apr 1996
J COLLOID INTERF SCI

John C. Crocker

We describe a set of image processing algorithms for extracting quantitative data from digitized video microscope images of colloidal suspensions. In a typical application, these direct imaging techniques can locate submicrometer spheres to within 10 nn in the focal plane and 150 nn in depth. Combining information from a sequence of video images into single-particle trajectories makes possible measurements of quantities of fundamental and practical interest such as diffusion coefficients and pair-wise interaction potentials, The measurements we describe in detail combine the outstanding resolution of digital imaging with video-synchronized optical trapping to obtain highly accurate and reproducible results very rapidly. (C) 1996 Academic Press,Inc.

The Influence of Specimen Refractive Index, Detector Signal Integration, and Non-Uniform Scan Speed on the Imaging Properties in Confocal Microscopy

Article

Aug 1991

Kjell Carlsson

Refraction of light in a specimen volume may cause aberrations that influence the imaging properties in confocal microscopy. In this paper the influence on three-dimensional resolution and geometry is experimentally investigated for a uniform specimen volume. It is found that the depth resolution is more severely affected than the lateral resolution. This is unfortunate, because even under ideal conditions the depth resolution is lower than the lateral resolution. Lateral image geometry is little affected by the specimen refractive index, whereas the depth scale can be considerably elongated or compressed. The influence of a finite detector integration time is also considered. This can give a noticeable, but not particularly severe effect on the image resolution in the line-scan direction. Because the integration time can be accurately controlled, a shorter integration time can be used when maximum resolution is essential, albeit at the price of a higher noise level. In scanning fluorescence microscopy a non-uniform scan speed may give large variations in bleaching over the specimen surface. Experiments illustrate how serious such non-uniform bleaching effects can be when a specimen area is repeatedly scanned, for example when recording optical serial sections.

Optically induced angular alignment of trapped birefringent micro-objects by linearly polarized light

Article

Mar 1999

Optically induced mechanical angular alignment of trapped birefringent micrometer-sized objects resulting from the transfer of angular momentum produced by birefringence using linearly polarized light has been experimentally demonstrated. Fluorinated polyimide (PMDA/TFDB) micro-objects having a large birefringence of Δn=nslow-nfast=0.13 (refractive indices nslow=1.62, nfast=1.49), which were fabricated by micromachining (reactive ion etching) and suspended in water (n=1.33), were trapped and manipulated by radiation pressure from a single focused Gaussian beam (wavelength λ=1.064 μm, power>130 μW). The effect of the linearly polarized light on such micro-objects showed that they were angularly aligned about the laser beam axis and their angular position could be smoothly controlled by rotating the vibration plane of the electric field. We have shown that the retardation of the birefringent micro-object determines which axis (fast or slow) of the micro-object coincides with the vibration plane of the electric field of the incident light.