Dataset Information

Evaluation of chemical fluorescent dyes as a protein conjugation partner for live cell imaging.

ABSTRACT: To optimize live cell fluorescence imaging, the choice of fluorescent substrate is a critical factor. Although genetically encoded fluorescent proteins have been used widely, chemical fluorescent dyes are still useful when conjugated to proteins or ligands. However, little information is available for the suitability of different fluorescent dyes for live imaging. We here systematically analyzed the property of a number of commercial fluorescent dyes when conjugated with antigen-binding (Fab) fragments directed against specific histone modifications, in particular, phosphorylated H3S28 (H3S28ph) and acetylated H3K9 (H3K9ac). These Fab fragments were conjugated with a fluorescent dye and loaded into living HeLa cells. H3S28ph-specific Fab fragments were expected to be enriched in condensed chromosomes, as H3S28 is phosphorylated during mitosis. However, the degree of Fab fragment enrichment on mitotic chromosomes varied depending on the conjugated dye. In general, green fluorescent dyes showed higher enrichment, compared to red and far-red fluorescent dyes, even when dye:protein conjugation ratios were similar. These differences are partly explained by an altered affinity of Fab fragment after dye-conjugation; some dyes have less effect on the affinity, while others can affect it more. Moreover, red and far-red fluorescent dyes tended to form aggregates in the cytoplasm. Similar results were observed when H3K9ac-specific Fab fragments were used, suggesting that the properties of each dye affect different Fab fragments similarly. According to our analysis, conjugation with green fluorescent dyes, like Alexa Fluor 488 and Dylight 488, has the least effect on Fab affinity and is the best for live cell imaging, although these dyes are less photostable than red fluorescent dyes. When multicolor imaging is required, we recommend the following dye combinations for optimal results: Alexa Fluor 488 (green), Cy3 (red), and Cy5 or CF640 (far-red).

SUBMITTER: Hayashi-Takanaka Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4153647 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of chemical fluorescent dyes as a protein conjugation partner for live cell imaging.

Hayashi-Takanaka Yoko Y Stasevich Timothy J TJ Kurumizaka Hitoshi H Nozaki Naohito N Kimura Hiroshi H

PloS one 20140903 9

To optimize live cell fluorescence imaging, the choice of fluorescent substrate is a critical factor. Although genetically encoded fluorescent proteins have been used widely, chemical fluorescent dyes are still useful when conjugated to proteins or ligands. However, little information is available for the suitability of different fluorescent dyes for live imaging. We here systematically analyzed the property of a number of commercial fluorescent dyes when conjugated with antigen-binding (Fab) fr ...[more]

PMID: 25184362

Similar Datasets

Project description:The simultaneous measurement of gene expression for thousands of genes in a single analysis by the microarray technology allows researchers to describe transcriptomes in various samples of interest. Problems with variation in data quality derived from microarray experiments are well known and might result from poor RNA quality, background problems, or sub optimal signal strength. To assess variation due to the fluorescent dye chosen, three different dye pairs were tested for labelling of cDNA in gene expression analysis experiments on a porcine immune focused oligonucleotide microarray (POM3). This in-house oligonucleotide microarray allowed a direct comparison of background fluorescence, Median signal intensities, numbers of spots detected, and resistance to photobleaching between different dye pairs. We tested Alexa Flour 546/647, Cy3/Cy5 as well as Oyster 550/650 all from Genisphere Inc., Hatfield, PA, USA. Keywords: Comparison of fluorescent dyes Each dye pairs were hybridized on two slides. The same two samples were compared on all the slides used in the present study. The liver sample from a healthy animal was labeled with the high wavelength dyes (Oyster 650/Alexa 647/Cy5) and the liver sample from the sick animal was labeled with the low wavelength dyes (Oyster 550/Alexa 546/Cy3). Each slide was scanned 3 times, immediately after hybridization (first round), after 1 month of storage in darkness and after 24 hours on the bench (12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of artificial light). Total RNA from the infected and control liver samples were extracted using RNeasy midi kit (Qiagen, Denmark) and DNase treated using RNase-Free DNase Set (Qiagen). 3DNATM Array 900 expression array detection kits (Genisphere Inc.) were used for the labeling and cDNA synthesis reaction of the RNA in the present study. Three different pairs of fluorescent dyes Oyster 550/650 (Genisphere Inc.), Alexa 546/647 (Genisphere Inc.), and Cy3/Cy5 (Genisphere Inc.) were used in separate labeling reactions. Labeling was done according to the manufacturers protocol for large-scale cDNA synthesis. For the cDNA synthesis 9.2Âµg total RNA from each liver sample was used and mixed with 20U AmpliQ RTenzyme and 10x first strand buffer (Bie og Berntsen, RÃ¸dovre, Denmark). Hybridization and washing were performed according to the manufacturers instructions (Genisphere) using Corning hybridization chambers. For one cDNA hybridization reaction; 6.5Âµl cDNA from each synthesis, 0.5Âµl Salmon sperm (10Âµg/Âµl) and 13.5Âµl 2 x Formamide-Based Hybridization Buffer (3DNA Array 900, Genisphere) was used. A total hybridization mix of 29Âµl was applied under a 22I x 25 mm LifterSlip (Erie Scientific, Portsmouth, NH, USA) carefully avoiding air bubbles. Slides were incubated at 44oC in a water bath over night. Wash buffer 1 (3DNA Array 900, Genisphere) was preheated to 44oC for the post cDNA hybridization wash. For two 3DNA hybridization reaction mixes; 2.5Âµl of each Capture reagent and 26Âµl SDS-Based hybridization buffer was mixed to a final volume of 52Âµl. 26Âµl 3DNA hybridization mix was applied to each slide, and incubated in darkness in a water bath at 50oC for 4 hours. Wash buffer 1 was preheated to 60oC for the post 3DNA hybridization wash. Slides were scanned on a CCD ArrayWoRxe auto (Applied Precision, Issaquah, WA, USA) using different exposure times (0.3 for 595 nm and 1.2 for 685 nm).

Dataset Information

Evaluation of chemical fluorescent dyes as a protein conjugation partner for live cell imaging.

Publications

Evaluation of chemical fluorescent dyes as a protein conjugation partner for live cell imaging.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets