Wavelength scans were performed using the 364-, 488-, 568-, and 633-nm laser lines of a laser scanning confocal microscope (TCS-SP; Leica, Deerfield, IL) equipped with a spectrophotometric detector utilizing a Hamamatsu R6357 photodetector (Hamamatsu Corp., Hamamatsu City, Japan). This detector exhibits relatively even radiant sensitivity and quantum efficiency in the 400- to 800-nm range. Data as presented are not corrected for changes in sensitivity of the detector at different wavelengths. The spectrophotometric detector used does not rely on barrier filters, and so filter characteristics did not influence the spectrum. Scans were performed using the substrate (for UV) or SP30/70 splitters (visible light), with an open pinhole, and the detector was set to advance a 10-nm window of detection in 10-nm increments between 400 and 800 nm. Gains were set individually for each field at each excitation wavelength, by using the glow over–under function to optimize collection of data across the full 8-bit scale. This was accomplished in a 10-nm window determined by narrowing the window of detection during continuous scanning to the region of maximum fluorescence. Gains were not altered through the course of the scan. Each scan was performed using frame averaging set at 4. Data were acquired in 8-bit mode starting with the 633-nm laser and progressing to shorter wavelengths in order. Lasers were set in the park position, resulting in delivery of 200 mW for the UV Ar laser (364-nm excitation) and 300 mW for the Ar and Kr lasers (488- and 568-nm excitation) to the back of the aperture lens according to the manufacturer’s specifications. The HeNe laser (633-nm excitation) was set to deliver 1 mW to the back of the aperture lens according to the manufacturer’s specifications.
Average pixel intensities for Bruch’s membrane, sub-RPE deposits, and RPE-lipofuscin were determined on computer (Metamorph software ver. 4.5; Universal Imaging, West Chester, PA, running on a Pentium III-powered computer; Intel Corp., Mountain View, CA). Numerical data were exported to a spreadsheet (Excel 97; Microsoft, Redmond, WA). The significance of differences in spectra obtained between control and AMD-affected eyes was assessed using a two-tailed, two-sample t-test, with no variance assumptions run within the software (Excel 97; Microsoft). Bruch’s membrane and sub-RPE deposits were selected for analysis based on a differential interference contrast (DIC) image of each field analyzed. Drusen and basal laminar–linear deposit were distinguished on the basis of shape. Hard and soft drusen were defined by their round contours with clearly defined borders. We could not always distinguish between soft and hard drusen by DIC imaging. Basal laminar and basal linear deposits (BLDs) were defined as a thick continuous layer of accumulations beneath the RPE. We could not distinguish basal laminar and basal linear deposits. Drusen and BLDs were not found to have different spectra and therefore were not separated in the final analysis of the data. Therefore, for the purposes of this study we referred to drusen and BLD collectively as sub-RPE deposits. Lipofuscin granules were selected by thresholding the section in each data set with the brightest RPE-lipofuscin to reveal the specific granules. Average pixel intensities for the Bruch’s membrane, sub-RPE deposits, and RPE-lipofuscin from the same fields were normalized against the strongest measurement associated with lipofuscin in each section series. To control for photobleaching, a separate set of sections were scanned sequentially as just described, progressing from 633- through 364-nm excitation, and then rescanned. This resulted in a shift of the background relative to the signal in the second scan of approximately 10% of maximum pixel intensity across the image.