4.5 Article

Determination of Dissociation Constants in Living Zebrafish Embryos with Single Wavelength Fluorescence Cross-Correlation Spectroscopy

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 97, 期 2, 页码 678-686

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.05.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. National University of Singapore
  2. Singapore Bioimaging Consortium and Biomedical Research Council [8-143-000284-305, R-143-000-351-305]
  3. Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The quantification of biological interactions is very important in life sciences. Here we report for the first time, to our knowledge, the determination of a biomolecular dissociation constant (K-D) in living zebrafish embryos at physiological protein expression levels. For that purpose, we extend the application of single wavelength fluorescence cross-correlation spectroscopy into small organisms and measure the interaction of Cdc42, a small Rho-GTPase, and IQGAP1, an actin-binding scaffolding protein. Cdc42 and IQGAP1 were labeled with monomeric red fluorescent protein and enhanced green fluorescent protein, respectively: Both fluorophores were excited at a single wavelength of 514 nm, simplifying the fluorescence spectroscopy measurements and allowing quantification. For the determination of the interaction, we used two Cdc42 mutants, the constitutively active Cdc42(G12V) which is in a predominantly GTP-bound form and the dominant-negative GDP-bound Cdc42(T17N). While Cdc42(G12V) binds to IQGAP1 with an apparent K-D of similar to 100 nM, Cdc42(T17N) has at least a one-order-of-magnitude lower affinity for the same protein. As a comparison, we measure the same protein-protein interactions in Chinese hamster ovary cell cultures but observe significant differences in protein mobility and K-D from the zebrafish measurements, supporting the notion that bimolecular interactions depend on the biological system under investigation and are best performed under physiologically relevant conditions.

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