4.5 Article

Optimization of pairings and detection conditions for measurement of FRET between cyan and yellow fluorescent proteins

Journal

MICROSCOPY AND MICROANALYSIS
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages 238-254

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1431927606060235

Keywords

FRET; GFP; two-photon microscopy; confocal microscopy; fluorescence spectral imaging; anisotropy; lifetime imaging

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA86283] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [F32 DK060275, DK067415, R21 DK067415, DK60275, DK53434] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM072048] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Detection of Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET) between cyan and yellow fluorescent proteins is a key method for quantifying dynamic processes inside living cells. To compare the different cyan and yellow fluorescent proteins, FRET efficiencies were measured for a set of the possible donor:acceptor pairs. FRET between monomeric Cerulean and Venus is more efficient than the ECFP:EYFP pair and has a 10% greater Forster distance. We also compared several live cell microscopy methods for measuring FRET. The greatest contrast for changes in intramolecular FRET is obtained using a combination of ratiometric and spectral imaging. However, this method is not appropriate for establishing the presence of FRET without extra controls. Accurate FRET efficiencies are obtained by fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy, but these measurements are difficult to collect and analyze. Acceptor photobleaching is a common and simple method for measuring FRET efficiencies. However, when applied to cyan to yellow fluorescent protein FRET, this method becomes prone to an artifact that leads to overestimation of FRET efficiency and false positive signals. FRET was also detected by measuring the acceptor fluorescence anisotropy. Although difficult to quantify this method is exceptional for screening purposes, because it provides high contrast for discriminating FRET.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available