Cargando…
Quantitative comparison of DNA detection by GFP-lac repressor tagging, fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunostaining
BACKGROUND: GFP-fusion proteins and immunostaining are methods broadly applied to investigate the three-dimensional organization of cells and cell nuclei, the latter often studied in addition by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Direct comparisons of these detection methods are scarce, howe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2007
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2254608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18096031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6750-7-92 |
_version_ | 1782151204354129920 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Il-Han Nagel, Jens Otten, Simone Knerr, Boris Eils, Roland Rohr, Karl Dietzel, Steffen |
author_facet | Kim, Il-Han Nagel, Jens Otten, Simone Knerr, Boris Eils, Roland Rohr, Karl Dietzel, Steffen |
author_sort | Kim, Il-Han |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: GFP-fusion proteins and immunostaining are methods broadly applied to investigate the three-dimensional organization of cells and cell nuclei, the latter often studied in addition by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Direct comparisons of these detection methods are scarce, however. RESULTS: We provide a quantitative comparison of all three approaches. We make use of a cell line that contains a transgene array of lac operator repeats which are detected by GFP-lac repressor fusion proteins. Thus we can detect the same structure in individual cells by GFP fluorescence, by antibodies against GFP and by FISH with a probe against the transgene array. Anti-GFP antibody detection was repeated after FISH. Our results show that while all four signals obtained from a transgene array generally showed qualitative and quantitative similarity, they also differed in details. CONCLUSION: Each of the tested methods revealed particular strengths and weaknesses, which should be considered when interpreting respective experimental results. Despite the required denaturation step, FISH signals in structurally preserved cells show a surprising similarity to signals generated before denaturation. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2254608 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2007 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-22546082008-02-27 Quantitative comparison of DNA detection by GFP-lac repressor tagging, fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunostaining Kim, Il-Han Nagel, Jens Otten, Simone Knerr, Boris Eils, Roland Rohr, Karl Dietzel, Steffen BMC Biotechnol Research Article BACKGROUND: GFP-fusion proteins and immunostaining are methods broadly applied to investigate the three-dimensional organization of cells and cell nuclei, the latter often studied in addition by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Direct comparisons of these detection methods are scarce, however. RESULTS: We provide a quantitative comparison of all three approaches. We make use of a cell line that contains a transgene array of lac operator repeats which are detected by GFP-lac repressor fusion proteins. Thus we can detect the same structure in individual cells by GFP fluorescence, by antibodies against GFP and by FISH with a probe against the transgene array. Anti-GFP antibody detection was repeated after FISH. Our results show that while all four signals obtained from a transgene array generally showed qualitative and quantitative similarity, they also differed in details. CONCLUSION: Each of the tested methods revealed particular strengths and weaknesses, which should be considered when interpreting respective experimental results. Despite the required denaturation step, FISH signals in structurally preserved cells show a surprising similarity to signals generated before denaturation. BioMed Central 2007-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC2254608/ /pubmed/18096031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6750-7-92 Text en Copyright © 2007 Kim et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Kim, Il-Han Nagel, Jens Otten, Simone Knerr, Boris Eils, Roland Rohr, Karl Dietzel, Steffen Quantitative comparison of DNA detection by GFP-lac repressor tagging, fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunostaining |
title | Quantitative comparison of DNA detection by GFP-lac repressor tagging, fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunostaining |
title_full | Quantitative comparison of DNA detection by GFP-lac repressor tagging, fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunostaining |
title_fullStr | Quantitative comparison of DNA detection by GFP-lac repressor tagging, fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunostaining |
title_full_unstemmed | Quantitative comparison of DNA detection by GFP-lac repressor tagging, fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunostaining |
title_short | Quantitative comparison of DNA detection by GFP-lac repressor tagging, fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunostaining |
title_sort | quantitative comparison of dna detection by gfp-lac repressor tagging, fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunostaining |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2254608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18096031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6750-7-92 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimilhan quantitativecomparisonofdnadetectionbygfplacrepressortaggingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationandimmunostaining AT nageljens quantitativecomparisonofdnadetectionbygfplacrepressortaggingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationandimmunostaining AT ottensimone quantitativecomparisonofdnadetectionbygfplacrepressortaggingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationandimmunostaining AT knerrboris quantitativecomparisonofdnadetectionbygfplacrepressortaggingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationandimmunostaining AT eilsroland quantitativecomparisonofdnadetectionbygfplacrepressortaggingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationandimmunostaining AT rohrkarl quantitativecomparisonofdnadetectionbygfplacrepressortaggingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationandimmunostaining AT dietzelsteffen quantitativecomparisonofdnadetectionbygfplacrepressortaggingfluorescenceinsituhybridizationandimmunostaining |