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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Il-Han, Nagel, Jens, Otten, Simone, Knerr, Boris, Eils, Roland, Rohr, Karl, Dietzel, Steffen
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