4.5 Article

Distinguishing between Protein Dynamics and Dye Photophysics in Single-Molecule FRET Experiments

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 98, 期 4, 页码 696-706

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.12.4322

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET) efficiency distributions in single-molecule experiments contain both structural and dynamical information Extraction of this information from these distributions requires a careful analysis of contributions from dye photophysics. To investigate how mechanisms other than FRET affect the distributions obtained by counting donor and acceptor photons, we have measured single-molecule fluorescence trajectories of a small alpha/beta protein, i.e, protein GB1, undergoing two-state, folding/unfolding transitions. Alexa 488 donor and Alexa 594 acceptor dyes were attached to cysteines at positions 10 and 57 to yield two isomers-donor(10)/acceptor(57) and donor(57)/acceptor(10)-which could not be separated in the purification The protein was immobilized via binding of a histidine tag added to a linker sequence at the N-terminus to cupric ions embedded in a polyethylene-glycol-coated glass surface. The distribution of FRET efficiencies assembled from the trajectories is complex with widths for the individual peaks in large excess of that caused by shot noise Most of this complexity can be explained by two interfering photophysical effects-a photoinduced red shift of the donor dye and differences in the quantum yield of the acceptor dye for the two isomers resulting from differences in quenching rate by the cupric ion. Measurements of steady-state polarization, calculation of the donor-acceptor cross-correlation function from photon trajectories, and comparison of the single molecule and ensemble kinetics all indicate that conformational distributions and dynamics do not contribute to the complexity.

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