4.5 Article

Robust assessment of protein complex formation in vivo via single-molecule intensity distributions of autofluorescent proteins

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL OPTICS
卷 16, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.3600002

关键词

biophotonics; signal processing; microscopy; laser-induced fluorescence; fluoresence spectroscopy; spectroscopy cells

资金

  1. Stichting voor Fondamenteel Onderzoek der Materie of the Nederlands Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO-FOM) [FOM-L1707M]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The formation of protein complexes or clusters in the plasma membrane is essential for many biological processes, such as signaling. We develop a tool, based on single-molecule microscopy, for following cluster formation in vivo. Detection and tracing of single autofluorescent proteins have become standard biophysical techniques. The determination of the number of proteins in a cluster, however, remains challenging. The reasons are (i) the poor photophysical stability and complex photophysics of fluorescent proteins and (ii) noise and autofluorescent background in live cell recordings. We show that, despite those obstacles, the accurate fraction of signals in which a certain (or set) number of labeled proteins reside, can be determined in an accurate an robust way in vivo. We define experimental conditions under which fluorescent proteins exhibit predictable distributions of intensity and quantify the influence of noise. Finally, we confirm our theoretical predictions by measurements of the intensities of individual enhanced yellow fluorescent protein (EYFP) molecules in living cells. Quantification of the average number of EYFP-C10HRAS chimeras in diffraction-limited spots finally confirm that the membrane anchor of human Harvey rat sarcoma (HRAS) heterogeneously distributes in the plasma membrane of living Chinese hamster ovary cells. (C) 2011 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). [DOI: 10.1117/1.3600002]

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