Cargando…

Evaluation of Pulsed-FRAP and Conventional-FRAP for Determination of Protein Mobility in Prokaryotic Cells

BACKGROUND: Macromolecule mobility is often quantified with Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP). Throughout literature a wide range of diffusion coefficients for GFP in the cytoplasm of Escherichia coli (3 to 14 µm(2)/s) is reported using FRAP-based approaches. In this study, we have e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mika, Jacek T., Krasnikov, Victor, van den Bogaart, Geert, de Haan, Foppe, Poolman, Bert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21980523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664
_version_ 1782212894816993280
author Mika, Jacek T.
Krasnikov, Victor
van den Bogaart, Geert
de Haan, Foppe
Poolman, Bert
author_facet Mika, Jacek T.
Krasnikov, Victor
van den Bogaart, Geert
de Haan, Foppe
Poolman, Bert
author_sort Mika, Jacek T.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Macromolecule mobility is often quantified with Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP). Throughout literature a wide range of diffusion coefficients for GFP in the cytoplasm of Escherichia coli (3 to 14 µm(2)/s) is reported using FRAP-based approaches. In this study, we have evaluated two of these methods: pulsed-FRAP and “conventional”-FRAP. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: To address the question whether the apparent discrepancy in the diffusion data stems from methodological differences or biological variation, we have implemented and compared the two techniques on bacteria grown and handled in the same way. The GFP diffusion coefficients obtained under normal osmotic conditions and upon osmotic upshift were very similar for the different techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses indicate that the wide range of values reported for the diffusion coefficient of GFP in live cells are due to experimental conditions and/or biological variation rather than methodological differences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3182251
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31822512011-10-06 Evaluation of Pulsed-FRAP and Conventional-FRAP for Determination of Protein Mobility in Prokaryotic Cells Mika, Jacek T. Krasnikov, Victor van den Bogaart, Geert de Haan, Foppe Poolman, Bert PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Macromolecule mobility is often quantified with Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP). Throughout literature a wide range of diffusion coefficients for GFP in the cytoplasm of Escherichia coli (3 to 14 µm(2)/s) is reported using FRAP-based approaches. In this study, we have evaluated two of these methods: pulsed-FRAP and “conventional”-FRAP. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: To address the question whether the apparent discrepancy in the diffusion data stems from methodological differences or biological variation, we have implemented and compared the two techniques on bacteria grown and handled in the same way. The GFP diffusion coefficients obtained under normal osmotic conditions and upon osmotic upshift were very similar for the different techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses indicate that the wide range of values reported for the diffusion coefficient of GFP in live cells are due to experimental conditions and/or biological variation rather than methodological differences. Public Library of Science 2011-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3182251/ /pubmed/21980523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664 Text en Mika et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mika, Jacek T.
Krasnikov, Victor
van den Bogaart, Geert
de Haan, Foppe
Poolman, Bert
Evaluation of Pulsed-FRAP and Conventional-FRAP for Determination of Protein Mobility in Prokaryotic Cells
title Evaluation of Pulsed-FRAP and Conventional-FRAP for Determination of Protein Mobility in Prokaryotic Cells
title_full Evaluation of Pulsed-FRAP and Conventional-FRAP for Determination of Protein Mobility in Prokaryotic Cells
title_fullStr Evaluation of Pulsed-FRAP and Conventional-FRAP for Determination of Protein Mobility in Prokaryotic Cells
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Pulsed-FRAP and Conventional-FRAP for Determination of Protein Mobility in Prokaryotic Cells
title_short Evaluation of Pulsed-FRAP and Conventional-FRAP for Determination of Protein Mobility in Prokaryotic Cells
title_sort evaluation of pulsed-frap and conventional-frap for determination of protein mobility in prokaryotic cells
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21980523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664
work_keys_str_mv AT mikajacekt evaluationofpulsedfrapandconventionalfrapfordeterminationofproteinmobilityinprokaryoticcells
AT krasnikovvictor evaluationofpulsedfrapandconventionalfrapfordeterminationofproteinmobilityinprokaryoticcells
AT vandenbogaartgeert evaluationofpulsedfrapandconventionalfrapfordeterminationofproteinmobilityinprokaryoticcells
AT dehaanfoppe evaluationofpulsedfrapandconventionalfrapfordeterminationofproteinmobilityinprokaryoticcells
AT poolmanbert evaluationofpulsedfrapandconventionalfrapfordeterminationofproteinmobilityinprokaryoticcells