4.3 Article

Heavy Metal Contaminants Can Eliminate Quantum Dot Fluorescence

期刊

CYTOMETRY PART A
卷 79A, 期 1, 页码 84-89

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cyto.a.20986

关键词

immunophenotyping; formalin; fluorescence intensity; quality control

资金

  1. National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [ZIAAI005020, ZICAI005101, ZIAAI005015, ZIAAI005073] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantum dots (QD) are fluorescent nanocrystals that are highly useful in imaging and flow cytometric analyses. During routine use of monoclonal antibody conjugates of QD, we have occasionally seen partial or total loss of fluorescence when using certain lots of fixative solutions. We hypothesized that a low level contamination with heavy metal cations was responsible, since low level metal contaminants are not uncommon in formalin solutions. By titrating known concentrations of heavy metal cations into staining solutions, we found that millimolar concentrations of ferrous and zinc ions, and as low as 50 nanomolar cupric ions, completely eliminated QD fluorescence. By mass spectroscopic quantification of metals in commercial fixative solutions previously shown to perform poorly or well with regard to QD fluorescence, we confirmed that the presence of copper in solution was correlated with poor performance. Notably, prior addition of EDTA to chelate the divalent cations in these solutions prevented the inhibition of QD fluorescence. Finally, the copper-induced loss of QD fluorescence is irreversible: cells labeled with QD are highly fluorescent and can be rendered nonfluorescent by the addition of cupric sulfate, even after washing extensively. Indeed, these cells can then be successfully stained with other QD reagents, providing a method for immunofluorescence restaining of cells without contaminating fluorescence from the first stain. Published 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.*

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

4.3
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