4.5 Article

High-performance time-resolved fluorescence by direct waveform recording

期刊

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
卷 81, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.3480647

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [AR032961, GM027906, F32AR056191, GM069783]
  2. Montana Board of Research and Commercialization Technology [08-48, 10-75]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We describe a high-performance time-resolved fluorescence (HPTRF) spectrometer that dramatically increases the rate at which precise and accurate subnanosecond-resolved fluorescence emission waveforms can be acquired in response to pulsed excitation. The key features of this instrument are an intense (1 mu J/pulse), high-repetition rate (10 kHz), and short (1 ns full width at half maximum) laser excitation source and a transient digitizer (0.125 ns per time point) that records a complete and accurate fluorescence decay curve for every laser pulse. For a typical fluorescent sample containing a few nanomoles of dye, a waveform with a signal/noise of about 100 can be acquired in response to a single laser pulse every 0.1 ms, at least 10(5) times faster than the conventional method of time-correlated single photon counting, with equal accuracy and precision in lifetime determination for lifetimes as short as 100 ps. Using standard single-lifetime samples, the detected signals are extremely reproducible, with waveform precision and linearity to within 1% error for single-pulse experiments. Waveforms acquired in 0.1 s (1000 pulses) with the HPTRF instrument were of sufficient precision to analyze two samples having different lifetimes, resolving minor components with high accuracy with respect to both lifetime and mole fraction. The instrument makes possible a new class of high-throughput time-resolved fluorescence experiments that should be especially powerful for biological applications, including transient kinetics, multidimensional fluorescence, and microplate formats. (C) 2010 American Institute of Physics. [doi:10.1063/1.3480647]

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

4.5
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