4.8 Article

Colloidal lenses allow high-temperature single-molecule imaging and improve fluorophore photostability

期刊

NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 127-132

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2009.452

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Optofluidics Center
  2. National Human Genome Research Institute [5R01HG003594-04]
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  4. Marie Curie fellowship [MOIF-CT-2006-0400320]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although single-molecule fluorescence spectroscopy was first demonstrated at near-absolute zero temperatures (1.8 K)(1), the field has since advanced to include room-temperature observations(2), largely owing to the use of objective lenses with high numerical aperture, brighter fluorophores and more sensitive detectors. This has opened the door for many chemical and biological systems to be studied at native temperatures at the single-molecule level both in vitro(3-4) and in vivo(5-6). However, it is difficult to study systems and phenomena at temperatures above 37 degrees C, because the index-matching fluids used with high-numerical-aperture objective lenses can conduct heat from the sample to the lens, and sustained exposure to high temperatures can cause the lens to fail. Here, we report that TiO2 colloids with diameters of 2 mu m and a high refractive index can act as lenses that are capable of single-molecule imaging at 70 degrees C when placed in immediate proximity to an emitting molecule. The optical system is completed by a low-numerical-aperture optic that can have a long working distance and an air interface, which allows the sample to be independently heated. Colloidal lenses were used for parallel imaging of surface-immobilized single fluorophores and for real-time single-molecule measurements of mesophilic and thermophilic enzymes at 70 degrees C. Fluorophores in close proximity to TiO2 also showed a 40% increase in photostability due to a reduction of the excited-state lifetime.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据