4.8 Article

Directed evolution of a far-red fluorescent rhodopsin

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1413987111

关键词

optogenetics; opsins; bioelectricity; voltage sensor; near-infrared

资金

  1. US Army Research Office [W911NF-09-0001]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [1R21MH103824-01, 1R01DA028299, 5710002669, GM29498]
  3. NIH/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke New Innovator Award [IDP20D017782-01]
  4. Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Department of Energy [DEFG03-86ER13525]
  5. German Research Foundation [EN 957/1-1]
  6. California Institute of Technology (Caltech) Biology Division Training Grant [NIH/NRSA 5T32GM07616]
  7. Provost of Caltech
  8. Biology and Biological Engineering Division of Caltech
  9. Beckman Institute of Caltech
  10. Shurl and Kay Curci Foundation
  11. Life Sciences Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbial rhodopsins are a diverse group of photoactive transmembrane proteins found in all three domains of life. A member of this protein family, Archaerhodopsin-3 (Arch) of halobacterium Halorubrum sodomense, was recently shown to function as a fluorescent indicator of membrane potential when expressed in mammalian neurons. Arch fluorescence, however, is very dim and is not optimal for applications in live-cell imaging. We used directed evolution to identify mutations that dramatically improve the absolute brightness of Arch, as confirmed biochemically and with live-cell imaging (in Escherichia coli and human embryonic kidney 293 cells). In some fluorescent Arch variants, the pK(a) of the protonated Schiff-base linkage to retinal is near neutral pH, a useful feature for voltage-sensing applications. These bright Arch variants enable labeling of biological membranes in the far-red/infrared and exhibit the furthest red-shifted fluorescence emission thus far reported fora fluorescent protein (maximal excitation/emission at similar to 620 nm/730 nm).

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