4.5 Article

Distribution and Co-localization of endosome markers in cells

期刊

HELIYON
卷 5, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02375

关键词

Analytical chemistry; Physical chemistry; Biophysics; Cell biology; Cell imaging; Image correlation spectroscopy; Endocytosis; Fluorescence microscopy

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clathrin mediated endocytosis is one pathway for internalization of extracellular nano materials into cells [1, 2]. In this pathway, proteins attached to receptors and the internalized materials are encapsulated in clathrin coated membrane vesicles that subsequently fuse with or transform into intracellular compartments (early and late endosomes) as their contents are being directed to the lysosomes for degradation. The following proteins are commonly used to mark the pathway at various stages: Rab5 (early endosome), Rab7 (late endosome), and LAMP-1 (lysosome). In this work, we studied the distribution and co-localization of these marker proteins in two cell lines (C2C12 and A549) to determine whether these markers are unique for specific endosome types or whether they can co-exist with other markers. We estimate the densities and sizes of the endosomes containing the three markers, as well as the number of marker antibodies attached to each endosome. We determine that the markers are not unique to one endosome type but that the extent of co-localization is different for the two cell types. In fact, we find endosomes that contain all three markers simultaneously. Our results suggest that the use of these proteins as specific markers for specific endosome types should be reevaluated. This was the first successful use of triple image cross correlation spectroscopy to qualitatively and quantitatively study the extent of interaction among three different species in cells and also the first experimental study of three-way interactions of clathrin mediated endocytic markers.

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