Immunofluorescence, a powerful technique to detect specific targets using fluorescently labeled antibodies, has been widely used in both scientific research and clinical diagnostics. The probes should be made with small antibodies and high brightness. We conjugated GFP binding protein (GBP) nanobodies, small single-chain antibodies from llamas, with new ∼7 nm quantum dots. These provide simple and versatile immunofluorescence nanoprobes with nanometer accuracy and resolution. Using the new probes we tracked the walking of individual kinesin motors and measured their 8 nm step sizes; we tracked Piezo1 channels, which are eukaryotic mechanosensitive channels; we also tracked AMPA receptors on living neurons. Finally, we used a new super-resolution algorithm based on blinking of (small) quantum dots that allowed ∼2 nm precision.
Immunofluorescence, a powerful technique to detect specific targets using fluorescently labeled antibodies, has been widely used in both scientific research and clinical diagnostics. The probes should be made with small antibodies and high brightness. We conjugated GFP binding protein (GBP) nanobodies, small single-chain antibodies from llamas, with new ∼7 nm quantum dots. These provide simple and versatile immunofluorescence nanoprobes with nanometer accuracy and resolution. Using the new probes we tracked the walking of individual kinesin motors and measured their 8 nm step sizes; we tracked Piezo1 channels, which are eukaryotic mechanosensitive channels; we also tracked AMPA receptors on living neurons. Finally, we used a new super-resolution algorithm based on blinking of (small) quantum dots that allowed ∼2 nm precision.
Immunofluorescence
is a powerful technique to detect specific targets
using fluorescently labeled antibodies. It has been widely used in
both scientific research and clinical diagnostics. This technique
makes use of the specificity of antibodies to their antigens and allows
visualization of target molecules in vivo and in vitro via fluorescence.
Examples of immunofluorescence include immunostaining, immunohistochemistry,
and immunoprecipitation. More recently, immunofluorescence has been
utilized in superaccuracy and super-resolution microscopies.[1−5]Brighter and more photostable fluorophores are clearly desirable,
so we replaced the fluorophores with quantum dots (QDs).[6] QDs are ∼100× brighter than organic
fluorophores, and are highly resistant to photobleaching. However,
the hydrodynamic diameter of commercial (biologically functionalized)
QDs is 15–20 nm, a fairly large size in sterically constrained
situations.[7] We recently developed small
quantum dots (sQDs), which are ∼7 nm in diameter (or ∼9
nm when functionalized with streptavidin (SA)), and about 1/3 the
brightness of commercial QDs.[8]Reducing
the size of antibodies would also assist in sterically
limited environments. In conventional immunofluorescence, a full IgG
antibody (with two binding sites) is usually used, at ∼150
kDa and ∼14.5 × 8.5 × 4 nm3 in size, with
a binding affinity that ranges from nanomolar to picomolar. In contrast,
the single binding fragments derived from llama antibodies, often
called “nanobodies”, are much smaller. A nanobody to
GFP (or YFP), known as GFP binding protein (GBP), is only ∼13
kDa and 1.5 × 2.5 nm2 with subnanomolar affinity.[9,10]In this Article we report conjugates of our new small quantum
dots
to GBP, thereby extending immunofluorescence to any GFP-labeled protein.
The hydrodynamic diameter of our sQD-GBP conjugates is smaller than
the size of any QD-antibody or QD-nanobody conjugates reported in
the literature.[11,12] We first applied the new probes
to track the walking of individual kinesin motors and measured their
∼8 nm step sizes. Then we utilized the new probes in super-resolution
imaging for measuring the size of Piezo1 proteins in cells. Piezo1
is a recently cloned cation selective eukaryotic mechanosensitive
ion channel,[13−16] containing 4 identical subunits. The distances between subunits
are generally too large for more conventional techniques (FRET, for
example), yet sufficiently small that the size of the probes may be
important: hence, using a GBP-sQD is ideal. In addition, we used a
new super-resolution algorithm based on blinking of QD that allowed
unusually good (∼2 nm) precision. Last, we used the probes
to label and track AMPA receptors in the synaptic cleft on the membrane
of neurons. Here, the size of the probes is critical because of the
constrained volume surrounding the receptors.
Results and Discussion
We prepared sQD-GBP conjugates following a protocol from ref (8) described in the Supporting Information. Briefly, organic CdSe/ZnS
QDs (emission = 580 nm, or 620 nm) were mixed with a mixture of commercially
available PEGylated alkanethiol (HSC11(EG)4-OH, 97.5%) and carboxyl
PEGylated alkanethiol (HSC11(EG)4-COOH, 2.5%) in H2O/toluene
with tetraethylammonium hydroxide (TEAH; 20 wt % in H2O)
as base. Similar thiol-ligands (but longer) have been utilized in
the literature.[17−19] The reaction went on for 4 h under nitrogen at 60
°C, resulting in the transfer of QDs from organic phase into
aqueous phase, monitored by fluorescence under UV. After washing with
chloroform three times, negatively charged QDs (i.e., COOH-sQD) were
purified from the aqueous solution using a self-packed DEAE anion
exchange column. The carboxylated sQDs can then be conjugated to streptavidin
or GBP nanobodies via coupling by EDC, which cross-links carboxyl
groups on the sQDs to amine groups on the proteins. Unconjugated proteins
were removed by a 100 kDa cutoff centrifugal filter unit, while aggregates
were removed by centrifugal filter units with 0.2 μm pore-size.
Conjugated sQD-GBPs were stored in PBS buffer at 4 °C for later
use.The conjugation of GBP to sQD was confirmed by several
controls.
For example, agarose gel electrophoresis (1%, 10 mM sodium phosphate,
pH 8.0) was used since the fluorescence of sQDs can be detected directly.[17,18] As shown in Figure 1C, the unconjugated sQDs
show a single band with higher mobility while the sQD-GBP conjugates
show a slightly retarded band, caused by the increased overall size
after GBP conjugation.
Figure 1
Synthesis and characterization of sQD-GBP conjugates.
(A) CdSe/ZnS
QDs (Red) were first coated with a mixture of PEGylated alkanethiol
[HSC11(EG)4-OH] (orange) and carboxyl PEGylated alkanethiol [HSC11(EG)4-COOH]
(blue) under the described conditions.[8] The resultant COOH-functionalized QDs (sQD) were further conjugated
to GBP via EDC coupling to produce GBP functionalized sQDs (sQD-GBP).
(B) sQD-GBP binds to a GFP-fused protein, allowing for the detection
of the protein of interest. (C) Agarose gel electrophoresis was used
to confirm the success of sQD-GBP conjugation. Unconjugated sQDs show
a band with higher mobility while sQD-GBP conjugates ran slightly
more slowely, due to the increased size after the attachment of GBP
proteins. (D) High resolution TEM shows that the size distribution
of sQD-GBP conjugates is monodispersed, with a peak around 4.5 ±
0.5 nm (mean ± SD, n = 55). (E) Typical high
resolution TEM image of sQD-GBP conjugates (scale bar = 5 nm). (F)
Subtle lattice of the CdSe/ZnS qdots can be observed from the high
resolution TEM images (scale bar = 5 nm). (G) An example of a DLS
measurement shows the hydrodynamic size (diameter) of sQD-GBP ≈
9.2 nm. (H) Twenty DLS measurements of the sQD-GBP size give an average
diameter of 9.8 ± 0.4 (Mean ± SD).
Synthesis and characterization of sQD-GBP conjugates.
(A) CdSe/ZnS
QDs (Red) were first coated with a mixture of PEGylated alkanethiol
[HSC11(EG)4-OH] (orange) and carboxyl PEGylated alkanethiol [HSC11(EG)4-COOH]
(blue) under the described conditions.[8] The resultant COOH-functionalized QDs (sQD) were further conjugated
to GBP via EDC coupling to produce GBP functionalized sQDs (sQD-GBP).
(B) sQD-GBP binds to a GFP-fused protein, allowing for the detection
of the protein of interest. (C) Agarose gel electrophoresis was used
to confirm the success of sQD-GBP conjugation. Unconjugated sQDs show
a band with higher mobility while sQD-GBP conjugates ran slightly
more slowely, due to the increased size after the attachment of GBP
proteins. (D) High resolution TEM shows that the size distribution
of sQD-GBP conjugates is monodispersed, with a peak around 4.5 ±
0.5 nm (mean ± SD, n = 55). (E) Typical high
resolution TEM image of sQD-GBP conjugates (scale bar = 5 nm). (F)
Subtle lattice of the CdSe/ZnS qdots can be observed from the high
resolution TEM images (scale bar = 5 nm). (G) An example of a DLS
measurement shows the hydrodynamic size (diameter) of sQD-GBP ≈
9.2 nm. (H) Twenty DLS measurements of the sQD-GBP size give an average
diameter of 9.8 ± 0.4 (Mean ± SD).The size of the sQD-GBP conjugates was characterized by both
high
resolution transmission electron microscope (TEM) and dynamic light
scattering (DLS). For TEM imaging, the conjugates were loaded on an
ultrathin carbon film TEM grid and imaged on a JEOL 2010 LaB6 high
resolution TEM operating at 200 kV. The size (diameter) distribution
of the conjugates, measured from TEM, showed a monodispersion distribution,
with a peak center at 4.5 ± 0.5 nm (mean ± SD, n = 55, Figure 1D). A representative sample
of sQD-GBP conjugates is shown in Figure 1E,
which also proves that quantum dots were properly stabilized by the
protein conjugates. In addition, subtle lattice of the CdSe/ZnS qdots
can be observed from the high resolution TEM images (Figure 1F). Note that TEM mainly measures the size of the
core and inorganic shell of the nanocrystals. The hydrodynamic size
(diameter) of the sQD-GBP conjugates was also measured by DLS. A typical
DLS measurement is shown in Figure 1G, with
a hydrodynamic size of 9.2 nm. Multiple DLS measurements give a monodispersion
distribution for the hydrodynamic size, centered at 9.8 ± 0.4
(mean ± SD, n = 20, Figure 1H). Compared to bare sQD, the hydrodynamic size of the sQD-GBP
conjugate is increased by ∼4 nm; compared to the hydrodynamic
size of carboxylated sQD, the hydrodynamic size of sQD-GBP increases
by ∼1.5 nm. This increase in the size after conjugation to
GBP once again confirms the success of conjugation.We first
applied sQD-GBP to measure the in vitro step-size of kinesin,
a molecular motor which walks on microtubules and plays a key role
in many cellular transport processes.[20] It has been shown that kinesin moves in 8.3 nm center-of-mass steps
and that kinesin “walks” in a hand-over-hand fashion
with ∼16.6 nm stride length.[21,22] We attached
the sQD-GBP to a GFP fused to the heavy chain of truncated kinesin560,
and watched the motor walking at a low ATP concentration of 400 nM
(Figure 2A). The high spatial resolution is
achieved by FIONA (fluorescence imaging with one nanometer accuracy).[2] Two example traces of kinesin labeled with a
GBP-sQD are shown in Figure 2C. Traces were
tested for steps with Students’ t test and
the resulting step sizes were plotted in a histogram (Figure 2B). The mean step size was determined by fitting
the distribution withwherewhich
takes into account the asymmetric distance
distribution due to noise.[23]I0 is the modified Bessel function of integer order zero, x is the measured distance, σ is the localization error, and μ is the true distance.
Note that the second term [A2p(x, 2μ, σ2)] in the fitting
function originates from motors with a stepping rate faster than the
experimental time resolution. The major population (65%) gives a step
size of 8.1 ± 0.2 nm (mean ± SEM), consistent with previous
reports.[24,25]
Figure 2
Measurement of the step size of kinesin using
sQD-GBP as probes.
(A) Scheme of the experiment. (B) Distribution of step sizes. (C)
Two example traces of kinesin labeled with a sQD-GBP. In the context
of immunofluorescence, microtubules were decorated using kinesins
as primary antibodies and (D) sQD-GBP conjugates or (E) unconjugated
sQD as secondary antibodies. We observed (D) a lot of binding with
sQD-GBP conjugates and (E) almost no binding with carboxylated sQD.
Microtubules and kinesins were present in both samples and experiments
were run in parallel. (F) Quantification of the binding count shows
that less than 1% of the binding is due to nonspecific binding (100.0
± 1.4% vs 0.45 ± 0.06% [Mean ± SD, n = 6]).
Measurement of the step size of kinesin using
sQD-GBP as probes.
(A) Scheme of the experiment. (B) Distribution of step sizes. (C)
Two example traces of kinesin labeled with a sQD-GBP. In the context
of immunofluorescence, microtubules were decorated using kinesins
as primary antibodies and (D) sQD-GBP conjugates or (E) unconjugated
sQD as secondary antibodies. We observed (D) a lot of binding with
sQD-GBP conjugates and (E) almost no binding with carboxylated sQD.
Microtubules and kinesins were present in both samples and experiments
were run in parallel. (F) Quantification of the binding count shows
that less than 1% of the binding is due to nonspecific binding (100.0
± 1.4% vs 0.45 ± 0.06% [Mean ± SD, n = 6]).The system of microtubule and
kinesin was also used as a third
control to confirm the success of sQD-GBP conjugation. In the context
of immunofluorescence, we decorated microtubules by using kinesins
as primary antibodies (as kinesin binds to microtubule under appropriate
conditions) and sQD-GBP conjugates (or unconjugated sQD) as secondary
antibodies. We observed a lot of binding with sQD-GBP conjugates and
almost no binding with unconjugated sQD (100.0 ± 1.4% vs 0.45
± 0.06%), as shown in Figure 2D,E,F.We then labeled Piezo1 proteins, mechanosensitive channels recently
identified in mammalian cells,[13,14] with sQD-GBP. Mutations
of this protein are associated with human diseases such as xerocytosis
which disrupts red blood cell volume regulation.[15] It has been proposed that Piezo1 proteins assemble as homotetramers
in vitro and may do so in vivo (with a total molecular weight of 4
× 0.3 MDa ≈ 1.2 MDa). A crystal structure is not yet available
and FRET measurements of monomer spacing have yet to be made—and
in most cases, they are likely too large to be measured. Consequently
we measured the monomer/monomer distances via single-molecule high-resolution
co-localization (SHREC), a two-color form of FIONA with <10 nm
resolution.[26] Here, we used sQD-GBP conjugates
with two colors (sQD580-GBP, emission at 580 nm; and sQD620-GBP, emission
at 620 nm) to co-localize subunits by measuring the N-to-N and C-to-C
distances.We isolated single His-tagged Piezo homotetramers
for fluorescent
imaging using single-molecule pull-down (SiMPull).[27] In brief, GFP-fused Piezo1 proteins were expressed in HEK293
cells and collected after cell lysis, followed by labeling with sQD580-GBP
and sQD620-GBP conjugates (Supporting Information Figure 1a). The labeled Piezo1 proteins were immobilized on a microscope
coverslip. The coverslip was functionalized with PEG and biotinylated
PEG to facilitate the binding of neutravidin, on top of which biotinylated
anti-His antibodies are bound (Supporting Information Figure 1b). The anti-His antibodies bind to the proteins and immobilize
them on the surface for imaging.Each color was imaged with
an Opto-Splitter on an EMCCD. Nanoholes
were used for co-localization and correction for achromatic aberration.[28,29] We achieved ∼1.1 nm for the target registration error for
mapping transformation between the two color probes (Supporting Information notes and Supporting
Information Figure 2b and c), three times better than that
obtained by using a fluorescent bead and moving the microscope stage,[26] or by using nonuniform nanoholes.[29]Figure 3A shows
images of Piezo1 labeled
with sQD-GBP conjugates. Some Piezo1 spots show co-localization of
two labels, indicating that these individual Piezo1 channels were
labeled by at least one sQD580-GBP and one sQD620-GBP (boxed area
in Figure 3A). On the other hand, due to the
stochastic nature of labeling, some Piezo1 channels were labeled with
only one color (circled area in Figure 3A).
Figure 3
Measurement
of the distance between N-termini of monomers of Piezo1
channels. (A) Piezo1 proteins labeled with sQD-GBP in two colors (Left:
∼580 nm, Right: ∼620 nm). The rectangles show example
spots with co-localization in the two channels, while the circles
indicate proteins labeled by sQD-GBP of only one color, which is expected,
as the labeling is stochastic. Panels B and C show localization of
spots using a super-resolution algorithm based on QD-blinking[30,31] for both colors. The precision of localization in (B) x and (C) y directions is 2.0 ± 0.5 nm (Mean
± SD). (D, E) Enlarged images of the spots indicated by yellow
arrow in (A). (F) Super-resolution analysis shows multiple localizations
of sQD580-GBP (green dots) and sQD620-GBP (red dots). Their centers
of masses (blue and black + signs) are used to calculate the distance
between the two sQDs. (G) A different representation of (F) by rendering
each dot as a Gaussian function with σ = 10 nm.
Measurement
of the distance between N-termini of monomers of Piezo1
channels. (A) Piezo1 proteins labeled with sQD-GBP in two colors (Left:
∼580 nm, Right: ∼620 nm). The rectangles show example
spots with co-localization in the two channels, while the circles
indicate proteins labeled by sQD-GBP of only one color, which is expected,
as the labeling is stochastic. Panels B and C show localization of
spots using a super-resolution algorithm based on QD-blinking[30,31] for both colors. The precision of localization in (B) x and (C) y directions is 2.0 ± 0.5 nm (Mean
± SD). (D, E) Enlarged images of the spots indicated by yellow
arrow in (A). (F) Super-resolution analysis shows multiple localizations
of sQD580-GBP (green dots) and sQD620-GBP (red dots). Their centers
of masses (blue and black + signs) are used to calculate the distance
between the two sQDs. (G) A different representation of (F) by rendering
each dot as a Gaussian function with σ = 10 nm.Instead of localizing the spots using FIONA directly,
we performed
super-resolution analysis using an algorithm based on QD-blinking
for both channels[30,31] (Supporting
Information notes) to localize sQD-GBP for multiple times,
with localization precision ∼2.0 ± 0.5 nm (Mean ±
SD, Figure 3B,C; or 2.7 nm using a more theoretical
accurate formula[29,32]). An advantage is that the super-resolution
algorithm allows us to have multiple localization events for the same
sQD-GBP and thus to reduce errors in distance calculations. A dual-labeled
Piezo1 cluster was indicated by the yellow arrows shown in Figure 3A and enlarged in Figure 3D and E. Super-resolution analysis, with correction for stage drift
using QDs in the same field of view, gives multiple localizations
of sQD580-GBP (green dots in Figure 3F) and
sQD620-GBP (red dots in Figure 3F). Their centers
of masses (blue and black + signs in Figure 3F) were used to calculate the distance between the two QDs.We measured the distance between N-termini of subunits of humanPiezo1 (ΔNN) and the distance between C-termini (ΔCC) (Figure 4A and B, respectively).
With the assumption that Piezo1 assembles as a homotetramer, the labels
can be on adjacent monomers or opposite monomers. Simple geometric
considerations predict the two distances to differ from each other
by √2. Thus, we fit the distribution with a sum of two Gaussians
whose centers differ by a factor of √2: f(x) = A1 exp[−(x – μ)2/(2σ12)] + A2 exp[−(x – √2 μ)2/(2σ22)]. The fitted curves give μ = 36 ± 10 nm (mean
± SD) for ΔNN and μ = 22 ± 5 nm (mean
± SD) for ΔCC.
Figure 4
Distributions of (A) the distances between
N-terminus of subunits
of human Piezo1 (ΔNN) and (B) the distance between
C-terminus (ΔCC). Fitting curves f(x) = A1 exp[−(x – μ)2/(2σ12)] + A2 exp[−(x – √2 μ)2/(2σ22)] give (A) μ = 36 ± 10 nm (Mean ± SD) for
ΔNN and (B) μ = 22 ± 5 nm (Mean ±
SD) for ΔCC.
Distributions of (A) the distances between
N-terminus of subunits
of humanPiezo1 (ΔNN) and (B) the distance between
C-terminus (ΔCC). Fitting curves f(x) = A1 exp[−(x – μ)2/(2σ12)] + A2 exp[−(x – √2 μ)2/(2σ22)] give (A) μ = 36 ± 10 nm (Mean ± SD) for
ΔNN and (B) μ = 22 ± 5 nm (Mean ±
SD) for ΔCC.Last, we labeled AMPA receptors (AMPARs) with sQD-GBP expressed
in neurons (Figure 5). AMPARs are ligand-gated
ion channels that mediate fast synaptic transmission in the central
nervous system. Trafficking of AMPARs in and out of synapses is one
of the effects of synaptic plasticity, which underlies the molecular
mechanism of learning and memory.[33]
Figure 5
(A) Specific
labeling of AMPA receptors on neurons. Green: GluA2-pHluorin;
Red: sQD-GBP. High labeling specific is demonstrated by sQD-GBP only
labeling neurons which expressed GluA2-pHluorin but not untransfected
neurons. (B) Diffusion trajectories of individual AMPA receptors from
(A). (C) Enlargement of the red square area of (B). (D) Distribution
of diffusion coefficient D for all trajectories shown in (B).
(A) Specific
labeling of AMPA receptors on neurons. Green: GluA2-pHluorin;
Red: sQD-GBP. High labeling specific is demonstrated by sQD-GBP only
labeling neurons which expressed GluA2-pHluorin but not untransfected
neurons. (B) Diffusion trajectories of individual AMPA receptors from
(A). (C) Enlargement of the red square area of (B). (D) Distribution
of diffusion coefficient D for all trajectories shown in (B).To study AMPAR lateral diffusion
at the synapse, quantum dots are
sometimes used as fluorescent probes due to their brightness and photostability.[8,34] However, the big size of commercially available QDs (15–20
nm in diameter) can lead to problems when labeling the AMPARs inside
the synaptic cleft, a 20–40 nm gap. Here we used sQD620-GBP
to track AMPAR movements on the surface of neurons, and to see whether
the sQD-GBP could enter the synapse. AMPAR subunit GluA2 was genetically
fused with pHluorin,[35] a pH-sensitive GFP,
and expressed in dissociated cortical neuron cultures. The neurons
were labeled with sQD620-GBP in a 5 min incubation. As shown in Figure 5A, the, sQD-GBP (red) specifically bound to the
neuron that expressed GluA2-pHluorin (green), but not to untransfected
neurons nearby or to the coverslip. (These untransfected neurons are
not fluorescently visible.) Note that the big red cluster on the lower
part of the image is not due to nonspecific labeling but to sQDs trapped
in the membrane of a dead cell.We used single particle tracking
to study the diffusion of the
sQD-labeled AMPARs. Figure 5B shows the trajectories
of individual AMPARs, with an enlarged image shown in Figure 5C. We calculated the diffusion coefficients for
the AMPARs labeled with sQD-GBP and found that 63% of the receptors
are immobile (defined as the diffusion coefficient, D, <0.01 μm2/s). The percentage is much higher
than using commercial QDs (11%) and also higher than using sQD-SA
(37%).[8] This indicates that the sQD-GBP
labeled AMPARs have a greater chance of diffusing into the synapse
and being trapped there. Another advantage of the sQD-GBP is that
GBP only has one binding site to GFP, whereas SA has 4 binding sites
to biotins. Therefore, using sQD-GBP instead of sQD-SA can reduce
the possibility of cross-linking when labeling target proteins.To conclude, the small quantum dots conjugated to nanobodies are
versatile immunofluorescence probes. We demonstrated its applications
by tracking the walking of individual kinesin motors, detecting and
measuring the size of Piezo1 channels, and tracing AMPA receptors
on neurons. The hydrodynamic diameter of our sQD-GBP conjugates is
9.8 nm, ∼20% smaller in diameter than the size of the recently
reported QD-nanobody conjugates.[12] In fact,
the sQD-GBP probes reported here are smaller than full antibodies
labeled with organic fluorophores.[36] However,
due to the use of QDs, the probes are much brighter than the conventional
fluorophores. The new probes can be applied to many GFP-fused (and
eventually other FP-) proteins. We expect that the current conjugation
method could be used with other nanobodies or single domain antibodies/fragments.
Authors: K David Wegner; Stina Lindén; Zongwen Jin; Travis L Jennings; Rachid el Khoulati; Paul M P van Bergen en Henegouwen; Niko Hildebrandt Journal: Small Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 13.281
Authors: Murat Baday; Aaron Cravens; Alex Hastie; Hyeongjun Kim; Deren E Kudeki; Pui-Yan Kwok; Ming Xiao; Paul R Selvin Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Chilman Bae; Radhakrishnan Gnanasambandam; Chris Nicolai; Frederick Sachs; Philip A Gottlieb Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Michael C Ashby; Sarah A De La Rue; G Scott Ralph; James Uney; Graham L Collingridge; Jeremy M Henley Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2004-06-02 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Kai Wen Teng; Yuji Ishitsuka; Pin Ren; Yeoan Youn; Xiang Deng; Pinghua Ge; Sang Hak Lee; Andrew S Belmont; Paul R Selvin Journal: Elife Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Sang Hak Lee; Chaoyi Jin; En Cai; Pinghua Ge; Yuji Ishitsuka; Kai Wen Teng; Andre A de Thomaz; Duncan Nall; Murat Baday; Okunola Jeyifous; Daniel Demonte; Christopher M Dundas; Sheldon Park; Jary Y Delgado; William N Green; Paul R Selvin Journal: Elife Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Fernanda Ramos-Gomes; Julia Bode; Alyona Sukhanova; Svetlana V Bozrova; Mara Saccomano; Miso Mitkovski; Julia Eva Krueger; Anja K Wege; Walter Stuehmer; Pavel S Samokhvalov; Daniel Baty; Patrick Chames; Igor Nabiev; Frauke Alves Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 4.379