4.4 Article

Hydrophilic labeling reagents of dipyrrylmethene-BF2 dyes for two-photon excited fluorometry:: Syntheses and photophysical characterization

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUORESCENCE
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 635-647

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1023/B:JOFL.0000039350.94256.53

关键词

two-photon excited fluorescence; dipyrrylmethene-BF2; BODIPY; synthesis; labeling; ArcDia TPX

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently introduced bioaffinity assay technology, ArcDia(TM)TPX, is based on two-photon excited fluorescence (TPE) and it enables separation-free ultra-sensitive immunoassays from microvolumes. Here we present syntheses of novel two-photon excitable fluorescent labeling reagents which have been specially designed to be used as label molecules in the ArcDia(TM)TPX assay technique. The labeling reagents are based on dipyrrylmetheneboron difluoride (dipyrrylmethene-BF2) chromophore, which have been substituted with aryl, heteroaryl or arylalkenyl chemical groups to extend the pi-electron conjugation. These substitutions results in a series of dipyrrylmethene-BF2 fluorophores with different photophysical properties. Dipyrrylmethene-BF2 fluorophores have been further substituted with a dipeptide linker unit and finally activated as succinimidyl esters to enable specific coupling with primary amino groups. The dipeptide linker serves as a spacer arm between the label and a target, and enhances the solubility of the label in aqueous solutions. Study of the chemical and photophysical performance of the new labeling reagents is described. The new labeling reagents exhibit high fluorescence quantum yields, and molar absorption coefficients. The results show that the new labels with the hydrophilic dipeptide linker unit provide large two-photon excitation cross-sections, high fluorescence quantum efficiency and good solubility in aqueous solutions. The results suggest that the novel dipyrrylmethene-BF2 labels are highly applicable to bioaffinity assays based on two-photon excitation of fluorescence.

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

4.4
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