4.6 Article

Experimental design of systems involving multiple fluorescent protein reporters

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 191-198

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2013.06.021

关键词

Systems engineering; Optimal design; Fluorescent proteins; Parameter identification; Biological and biomolecular engineering; Mathematical modeling

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0941313, 1238021]
  2. American Chemical Society [50978-ND9]
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Engineering Education and Centers [1238021] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  6. Directorate For Engineering [0941313] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fluorescent proteins have found widespread applications for analysis of biological systems as they can be used to track various events within living cells. Multiple fluorescent proteins are also simultaneously used to monitor different aspects of biological systems. However, extensive overlap in the emission spectra of the fluorescent proteins poses challenges in extracting the contribution of individual proteins to overall fluorescence intensity measurements. This work addresses this issue by deriving a computational formulation for extracting the contribution of fluorescence intensities of individual reporters to the overall measurements taken using a plate reader. Then, this formulation is used for deriving an experimental design criterion for choosing sets of fluorescent proteins such that the accuracy of the estimated contribution of different fluorescent proteins is maximized. The results are validated using two sets of experimental data involving different sets of fluorescent proteins. This work represents the first quantitative study that evaluates experimental design for selection of fluorescent proteins to use simultaneously for multiple-labeling applications. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All tights reserved.

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

4.6
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