4.8 Article

Imaging of dynamic secretory vesicles in living pollen tubes of Picea meyeri using evanescent wave microscopy

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 141, 期 4, 页码 1591-1603

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.106.080168

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evanescent wave excitation was used to visualize individual, FM4-64-labeled secretory vesicles in an optical slice proximal to the plasma membrane of Picea meyeri pollen tubes. A standard upright microscope was modified to accommodate the optics used to direct a laser beam at a variable angle. Under evanescent wave microscopy or total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy, fluorophores localized near the surface were excited with evanescent waves, which decay exponentially with distance from the interface. Evanescent waves with penetration depths of 60 to 400 nm were generated by varying the angle of incidence of the laser beam. Kinetic analysis of vesicle trafficking was made through an approximately 300-nm optical section beneath the plasma membrane using time-lapse evanescent wave imaging of individual fluorescently labeled vesicles. Two-dimensional trajectories of individual vesicles were obtained from the resulting time-resolved image stacks and were used to characterize the vesicles in terms of their average fluorescence and mobility, expressed here as the two-dimensional diffusion coefficient D-2. The velocity and direction of vesicle motions, frame-to-frame displacement, and vesicle trajectories were also calculated. Analysis of individual vesicles revealed for the first time, to our knowledge, that two types of motion are present, and that vesicles in living pollen tubes exhibit complicated behaviors and oscillations that differ from the simple Brownian motion reported in previous investigations. Furthermore, disruption of the actin cytoskeleton had a much more pronounced effect on vesicle mobility than did disruption of the microtubules, suggesting that actin cytoskeleton plays a primary role in vesicle mobility.

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