Cargando…

Comparative assessment of fluorescent proteins for in vivo imaging in an animal model system

Fluorescent protein tags are fundamental tools used to visualize gene products and analyze their dynamics in vivo. Recent advances in genome editing have expedited the precise insertion of fluorescent protein tags into the genomes of diverse organisms. These advances expand the potential of in vivo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heppert, Jennifer K., Dickinson, Daniel J., Pani, Ariel M., Higgins, Christopher D., Steward, Annette, Ahringer, Julie, Kuhn, Jeffrey R., Goldstein, Bob
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The American Society for Cell Biology 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5221575/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385332
http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E16-01-0063
_version_ 1782492844634669056
author Heppert, Jennifer K.
Dickinson, Daniel J.
Pani, Ariel M.
Higgins, Christopher D.
Steward, Annette
Ahringer, Julie
Kuhn, Jeffrey R.
Goldstein, Bob
author_facet Heppert, Jennifer K.
Dickinson, Daniel J.
Pani, Ariel M.
Higgins, Christopher D.
Steward, Annette
Ahringer, Julie
Kuhn, Jeffrey R.
Goldstein, Bob
author_sort Heppert, Jennifer K.
collection PubMed
description Fluorescent protein tags are fundamental tools used to visualize gene products and analyze their dynamics in vivo. Recent advances in genome editing have expedited the precise insertion of fluorescent protein tags into the genomes of diverse organisms. These advances expand the potential of in vivo imaging experiments and facilitate experimentation with new, bright, photostable fluorescent proteins. Most quantitative comparisons of the brightness and photostability of different fluorescent proteins have been made in vitro, removed from biological variables that govern their performance in cells or organisms. To address the gap, we quantitatively assessed fluorescent protein properties in vivo in an animal model system. We generated transgenic Caenorhabditis elegans strains expressing green, yellow, or red fluorescent proteins in embryos and imaged embryos expressing different fluorescent proteins under the same conditions for direct comparison. We found that mNeonGreen was not as bright in vivo as predicted based on in vitro data but is a better tag than GFP for specific kinds of experiments, and we report on optimal red fluorescent proteins. These results identify ideal fluorescent proteins for imaging in vivo in C. elegans embryos and suggest good candidate fluorescent proteins to test in other animal model systems for in vivo imaging experiments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5221575
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher The American Society for Cell Biology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52215752017-01-22 Comparative assessment of fluorescent proteins for in vivo imaging in an animal model system Heppert, Jennifer K. Dickinson, Daniel J. Pani, Ariel M. Higgins, Christopher D. Steward, Annette Ahringer, Julie Kuhn, Jeffrey R. Goldstein, Bob Mol Biol Cell Brief Reports Fluorescent protein tags are fundamental tools used to visualize gene products and analyze their dynamics in vivo. Recent advances in genome editing have expedited the precise insertion of fluorescent protein tags into the genomes of diverse organisms. These advances expand the potential of in vivo imaging experiments and facilitate experimentation with new, bright, photostable fluorescent proteins. Most quantitative comparisons of the brightness and photostability of different fluorescent proteins have been made in vitro, removed from biological variables that govern their performance in cells or organisms. To address the gap, we quantitatively assessed fluorescent protein properties in vivo in an animal model system. We generated transgenic Caenorhabditis elegans strains expressing green, yellow, or red fluorescent proteins in embryos and imaged embryos expressing different fluorescent proteins under the same conditions for direct comparison. We found that mNeonGreen was not as bright in vivo as predicted based on in vitro data but is a better tag than GFP for specific kinds of experiments, and we report on optimal red fluorescent proteins. These results identify ideal fluorescent proteins for imaging in vivo in C. elegans embryos and suggest good candidate fluorescent proteins to test in other animal model systems for in vivo imaging experiments. The American Society for Cell Biology 2016-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5221575/ /pubmed/27385332 http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E16-01-0063 Text en © 2016 Heppert et al. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). Two months after publication it is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0). “ASCB®,” “The American Society for Cell Biology®,” and “Molecular Biology of the Cell®” are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology.
spellingShingle Brief Reports
Heppert, Jennifer K.
Dickinson, Daniel J.
Pani, Ariel M.
Higgins, Christopher D.
Steward, Annette
Ahringer, Julie
Kuhn, Jeffrey R.
Goldstein, Bob
Comparative assessment of fluorescent proteins for in vivo imaging in an animal model system
title Comparative assessment of fluorescent proteins for in vivo imaging in an animal model system
title_full Comparative assessment of fluorescent proteins for in vivo imaging in an animal model system
title_fullStr Comparative assessment of fluorescent proteins for in vivo imaging in an animal model system
title_full_unstemmed Comparative assessment of fluorescent proteins for in vivo imaging in an animal model system
title_short Comparative assessment of fluorescent proteins for in vivo imaging in an animal model system
title_sort comparative assessment of fluorescent proteins for in vivo imaging in an animal model system
topic Brief Reports
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5221575/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385332
http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E16-01-0063
work_keys_str_mv AT heppertjenniferk comparativeassessmentoffluorescentproteinsforinvivoimaginginananimalmodelsystem
AT dickinsondanielj comparativeassessmentoffluorescentproteinsforinvivoimaginginananimalmodelsystem
AT paniarielm comparativeassessmentoffluorescentproteinsforinvivoimaginginananimalmodelsystem
AT higginschristopherd comparativeassessmentoffluorescentproteinsforinvivoimaginginananimalmodelsystem
AT stewardannette comparativeassessmentoffluorescentproteinsforinvivoimaginginananimalmodelsystem
AT ahringerjulie comparativeassessmentoffluorescentproteinsforinvivoimaginginananimalmodelsystem
AT kuhnjeffreyr comparativeassessmentoffluorescentproteinsforinvivoimaginginananimalmodelsystem
AT goldsteinbob comparativeassessmentoffluorescentproteinsforinvivoimaginginananimalmodelsystem