4.6 Article

A Systematic Investigation of Differential Effects of Cell Culture Substrates on the Extent of Artifacts in Single-Molecule Tracking

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045655

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G006911/1]
  2. UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G006911/1]
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G007160/1, BB/G006911/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. BBSRC [BB/G007160/1, BB/G006911/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Single-molecule techniques are being increasingly applied to biomedical investigation, notwithstanding the numerous challenges they pose in terms of signal-to-noise ratio issues. Non-specific binding of probes to glass substrates, in particular, can produce experimental artifacts due to spurious molecules on glass, which can be particularly deleterious in live-cell tracking experiments. In order to resolve the issue of non-specific probe binding to substrates, we performed systematic testing of a range of available surface coatings, using three different proteins, and then extended our assessment to the ability of these coatings to foster cell growth and retain non-adhesive properties. Linear PEG, a passivating agent commonly used both in immobilized-molecule single-molecule techniques and in tissue engineering, is able to both successfully repel non-specific adhesion of fluorescent probes and to foster cell growth when functionalized with appropriate adhesive peptides. Linear PEG treatment results in a significant reduction of tracking artifacts in EGFR tracking with Affibody ligands on a cell line expressing EGFR-eGFP. The findings reported herein could be beneficial to a large number of experimental situations where single-molecule or single-particle precision is required.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available