4.6 Article

Structure-Based Rational Design of Two Enhanced Bacterial Lipocalin Blc Tags for Protein-PAINT Super-resolution Microscopy

期刊

ACS CHEMICAL BIOLOGY
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 2456-2465

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acschembio.0c00440

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Energy, Office of Science [W-31-109-Eng-38]
  2. US Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [W-31-109-Eng-38]
  3. Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, NIH [HHSN261200800001E]
  4. Intramural Research Program of the NIH, Frederick National Laboratory, Center for Cancer Research
  5. Russian Science Foundation [16-14-10364]
  6. Russian Science Foundation [19-14-13035] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Super-resolution fluorescent imaging in living cells remains technically challenging, largely due to the photodecomposition of fluorescent tags. The recently suggested protein-PAINT is the only super-resolution technique available for prolonged imaging of proteins in living cells. It is realized with complexes of fluorogen-activating proteins, expressed as fusions, and solvatochromic synthetic dyes. Once photobleached, the dye in the complex is replaced with a fresh fluorogen available in the sample. With suitable kinetics, this replacement creates fluorescence blinking required for attaining super-resolution and overcomes photobleaching associated with the loss of an irreplaceable fluorophore. Here we report on the rational design of two protein-PAINT tags based on the 1.58 angstrom crystal structure of the DiB1:M739 complex, an improved green-emitting DiB3/F74V:M739 and a new orange-emitting DiB3/F53L:M739. They outperform previously reported DiB-based tags to become best in class biomarkers for protein-PAINT. The new tags advance protein-PAINT from the proof-of-concept to a reliable tool suitable for prolonged super-resolution imaging of intracellular proteins in fixed and living cells and two-color PAINT-like nanoscopy with a single fluorogen.

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