Lu Wei1, Wei Min1. 1. Department of Chemistry , Columbia University , New York , New York 10027 , United States.
Abstract
Optical microscopy has generated great impact for modern research. While fluorescence microscopy provides the ultimate sensitivity, it generally lacks chemical information. Complementarily, vibrational imaging methods provide rich chemical-bond-specific contrasts. Nonetheless, they usually suffer from unsatisfying sensitivity or compromised biocompatibility. Recently, electronic preresonance stimulated Raman scattering (EPR-SRS) microscopy was reported, achieving simultaneous high detection sensitivity and superb vibrational specificity of chromophores. With newly synthesized Raman-active dyes, this method readily breaks the optical color barrier of fluorescence microscopy and is well-suited for supermultiplex imaging in biological samples. In this Perspective, we first review previous utilizations of electronic resonance in various Raman spectroscopy and microscopy. We then discuss the physical origin and uniqueness of the electronic preresonance region, followed by quantitative analysis of the enhancement factors involved in EPR-SRS microscopy. On this basis, we provide an outlook for future development as well as the broad applications in biophotonics.
Optical microscopy has generated great impact for modern research. While fluorescence microscopy provides the ultimate sensitivity, it generally lacks chemical information. Complementarily, vibrational imaging methods provide rich chemical-bond-specific contrasts. Nonetheless, they usually suffer from unsatisfying sensitivity or compromised biocompatibility. Recently, electronic preresonance stimulated Raman scattering (EPR-SRS) microscopy was reported, achieving simultaneous high detection sensitivity and superb vibrational specificity of chromophores. With newly synthesized Raman-active dyes, this method readily breaks the optical color barrier of fluorescence microscopy and is well-suited for supermultiplex imaging in biological samples. In this Perspective, we first review previous utilizations of electronic resonance in various Raman spectroscopy and microscopy. We then discuss the physical origin and uniqueness of the electronic preresonance region, followed by quantitative analysis of the enhancement factors involved in EPR-SRS microscopy. On this basis, we provide an outlook for future development as well as the broad applications in biophotonics.
Modern optical
spectroscopy
and microscopy methods have allowed researchers to study molecular
processes in biological systems with unprecedented sensitivity and
specificity. In particular, fluorescence microscopy is almost the
method of choice for bioimaging applications. It offers robust single-molecule
detectability, target specificity, and biocompatibility by probing
the electronic resonance of versatile fluorescent probes and detecting
the Stokes-shifted emission in a background-free manner.[1−4] Complementary to fluorescence, Raman microscopy has become an increasingly
valuable bioanalytical tool by providing rich chemical information
derived from chemical-bond-specific vibrational transitions (Figure ). However, the conventional
spontaneous Raman scattering process is known to be about 10–14
orders of magnitude weaker than fluorescence (Figure a) and thus is highly restricted in its applications
for live-cell imaging.[5] In fact, the concern
for sensitivity has almost always been associated with linear Raman
detection when compared to fluorescence, with only one notable exception.
That is the near-field-based techniques of surface-enhanced raman
scattering (SERS) and tip-enhanced Raman scattering (TERS), which
achieved single-molecule sensitivity about more than 20 and 10 years
ago, respectively.[6−10] It has long been thought (and debated) that the remarkable enhancement
factor (EF) of 1010–1014 for SERS and
TERS solely originated from plasmonic enhancement with the metallic
nanostructures acting as optical antennas. It was only quantified
much later that the resonance Raman effect, involving electronic resonance,
played a significant role.[11−13]Considering that fluorescence
is also a resonant process by definition, it seems that, to ensure
high detection sensitivity (possibly down to single molecules), a
shared feature here is by going electronic-resonant.
Figure 1
Selective
milestones in the development of Raman spectroscopy and
bioimaging-oriented Raman microscopy.
Selective
milestones in the development of Raman spectroscopy and
bioimaging-oriented Raman microscopy.Energy diagrams of various Raman spectroscopy processes. (a) Spontaneous
Raman scattering. (b) Resonance Raman scattering. (c) Nonresonant
stimulated Raman scattering. (d) Rigorous resonance stimulated Raman
scattering. (e) Electronic preresonance stimulated Raman scattering.Indeed, the observation of the
resonance Raman effect could be
traced back to 1950s, even before the invention of lasers.[14−16] Later, electronic resonance-enhanced Raman scattering proved to
be particularly useful for spectroscopic studies. It could sensitively
and selectively probe the chemical structures as well as the excited-state
photophysics by bringing the laser excitation energy (ωexc) close to the molecular absorption peak (ω0) in both deep-UV and visible ranges (Figure b).[17−19] This strategy exploits electronic
and vibrational coupling in chromophores, in which the electronic
resonance significantly promotes those nuclear vibrations that are
coupled to the electronic transition. Although such a gain of Raman
intensity offers good sensitivity for spectroscopic interrogation
of light-absorbing chromophores, it often comes with several issues
for imaging applications. First, the achievable Raman signals can
be easily overwhelmed by the concomitant fluorescence backgrounds.
This is because even with rigorous resonance, i.e., ωexc ≈ ω0, the corresponding resonance Raman
cross section is still many orders (about 7–9 orders) of magnitude
away from absorption cross section of a typical chromophore (σabs ≈ 10–16 cm2). Second,
Raman detection under rigorous electronic resonance also suffers from
fast photobleaching or degradation.However, exceptions also
exist for the electronic-resonant spontaneous
Raman bioimaging if fluorescence emission is spectrally far away from
the Raman scattering or the excited-state lifetime is extremely short
(i.e., vanishing fluorescence quantum yield). For example, deep-ultraviolet
resonant Raman imaging of a cell was demonstrated without any labeling
at 257 nm excitation.[20] For another example,
resonance Raman imaging of cytochrome c in living cells has also been
achieved by taking advantage of its short excited-state lifetime.[21] Along a similar spectroscopic line but with
probe engineering, recent utilization of a special class of probes,
fluorescent quenchers with extremely low quantum yield, as resonance
Raman reporters demonstrated specific organelle imaging capability
by spontaneous Raman microscopy.[22,23] Compared to
nonresonant Raman (i.e., ωexc ≪ ω0), it showed 3 orders of magnitude signal enhancement.[22,23] Such a Raman signal boost and fluorescent background reduction from
resonance Raman reporters made spontaneous Raman imaging of certain
targets possible in living cells. However, its sensitivity and imaging
speed are still unsatisfying for visualizing a wide variety of biomolecules.Toward higher sensitivity, SERS provides an ultrasensitive strategy.
Its achievable up to 1014 giant EF made single-molecule
vibrational spectroscopy possible, opening up many exciting applications
in physical science.[8,13] In addition, the required metallic
surface in close proximity also effectively deprives the possible
fluorescence background. However, as powerful and as sensitive as
it is, there are a few near-field associated limitations. Biologically,
the strict reliance on metallic nanostructures restricts the general
applicability of SERS for biological targets. The close (angstrom-level)
contact with the metal surface could often perturb the native properties
of biomolecules, such as denaturing the proteins.[8] Physically, SERS is usually difficult for precise quantitative
analysis because the EFs offered by the surface plasmons vary substantially
between different substrate–molecule configurations. With deeper
understanding of the SERS mechanism, it was also gradually revealed
that the resonance Raman effect played a significant role in the overall
large EF. SERS of many chromophores could hence be more precisely
regarded as surface-enhanced resonance Raman scattering (SERRS).[8] Nonetheless, for a long time, the exact contribution
of electronic enhancement was less clear due to a lack of proper tools
to characterize the electronic resonance factors.Evidenced
by the evolutionary path of fluorescence microscopy,
far-field spectroscopy provides more general biocompatibility compared
to near-field methods. Nonlinear Raman scattering, the all-far-field
advanced Raman spectroscopy, naturally takes the next lead in enhancing
the Raman signals and exploiting electronic resonance in pursuit of
higher sensitivity. Indeed, in 2003, femtosecond stimulated Raman
scattering (FSRS) spectroscopy provided resonance-enhanced vibrational
spectra for visible (e.g., Rhodamine 6G) and near-infrared (e.g.,
3,3′-diethylthiatricarbocyanine iodide) dyes that are free
from fluorescence background.[24] In 2008,
it was FSRS again that precisely quantified the vibronic features
for the resonance Raman spectra of Rhodamine 6G. It unequivocally
determined a 106 EF for the rigorous resonance (107 EF by integration over all Raman modes of Rhodamine 6G) compared
to a standard reference, the spontaneous Raman cross section of C–O
bond stretching of methanol (σspon, Raman ≈
10–29 cm2).[12] It was from then that the contributions between resonance Raman
and surface plasmons could be explicitly separable for different SERRS
substrate configurations. Later in 2008, triple-resonance coherent
antistokes Raman scattering (CARS) microspectroscopy using femtosecond
laser pulse shaping was also reported for detecting electronic resonance-enhanced
nonlinear Raman signals from nonfluorescent molecules. This method
offered a sensitivity approaching 100 molecules in solution with 3
s integration.[25]However, the notion of resonance
Raman has largely escaped from
the radar of the modern nonlinear Raman imaging community, such as
for CARS and the more recently developed stimulated Raman scattering
(SRS) microscopy (Figure c). Both of them have been proven to be highly desirable for
label-free imaging with even up to video-rate speed.[26−32] A consensus has been reached in the field that SRS has superseded
CARS microscopy in almost all technical aspects. In particular, SRS
imaging offers linear dependence on concentration and shows identical
spectra to spontaneous Raman with no interference complications from
the nonresonance background as in CARS.[27,28] By virtue
of these advantages, SRS imaging, mostly in the label-free form, has
made a major impact with exciting applications in biological and medical
photonics.[28,33−43] Such a label-free strategy is appealing and powerful as it introduces
zero physical and chemical perturbation to biological systems. Going
beyond the label-free concept, the coupling of SRS microscopy with
small and bio-orthogonal vibrational tags, such as alkynes (i.e.,
carbon–carbon triple bond), has been recently demonstrated
for the detection of small biomolecules in the cell-silent Raman spectral
window.[44,45] Such bio-orthogonal chemical imaging offers
a powerful platform for functional metabolic imaging in live cells
and animals.[46−55] Its success underscores the importance of introducing vibrational
probes to improve specificity and sensitivity of nonlinear Raman microscopy.
However, even with extensive efforts of instrumentation improvement
and small-tag optimization, the detection sensitivity of SRS is still
in the range of 35 μM (i.e., diyne tags, double-conjugated alkynes)[51] to 200 μM (small alkyne tags).[44] Here, we note that nearly all of the previous
CARS and SRS imagings were operated in the nonresonance region, in
which the energy of the pump laser (ωpump) is well
below that of the molecular absorption peak (i.e., ωpump ≪ ω0) (Figure c).Realizing the possible large electronic
resonance EF of 106 when compared to nonresonance Raman
signals (e.g., C–O
bond), Wei et al. introduced a new scheme of SRS microscopy by shifting
from the commonly exploited nonresonance region (Figure c) to the electronic resonance
(i.e., ωpump close to ω0) (Figure d,e).[56] First, they directly explored the rigorous resonance
SRS detection (Figure d). Because the Stokes laser wavelength (λStokes) is fixed at 1064 nm in the setup, the pump laser wavelength (λpump) for detecting typical electronically
coupled vibrational modes (e.g., the total-symmetric vibration of
conjugated double bonds, at ∼1600–1660 cm–1) is around 906 nm. Hence, a far-red absorbing molecule IR895 (λabs ≈ 900 nm) was chosen as a model compound for exploring
the rigorous resonance SRS microspectroscopy. An intense but broad
peak was observed without clearly identifiable vibrational signatures.[56] The calculated cross section for this broad
peak is about 108 of the standard Raman cross section of
C–O bond in methanol acquired under the same SRS laser excitation
conditions. Because the SRS signal is detected as pump laser intensity
loss (i.e., the stimulated Raman loss) in the presence of Stokes photons,
such a huge background does not result from fluorescence emission
but a combination of the competing nonlinear optical processes.[24,57] It might include other electronic resonance-enhanced four-wave mixing
pathways such as resonant Rayleigh scattering and the absorption-based
pump photon loss due to ground-state population restoration by stimulated
emission from Stokes photons.Comparing the measured EF of 108 from the broad peak
of IR895 with the reported rigorous resonance Raman EF of 106, a signal-to-background (S/B) ratio of about 1% might be expected
between its narrow-band vibrational signal and the broad-band electronic
background. Such a small S/B ratio could be easily buried by background
fluctuation. This was indeed the case where the narrow Raman features
of IR895 were almost unobservable in the rigorous resonance SRS spectrum.[56] As a reference, the solvent Raman peak of CH3 from pure methanol was still identifiable with a S/B of about
8%.[56] It is worth mentioning that, in the
case that Raman features are resolvable under rigorous electronic
resonance SRS, normal Lorentzian-shaped Raman peaks should be inversed
or partially dispersed depending on where exactly the laser is exciting
on the absorption peak of the molecules.[58] Similar broad electronic backgrounds also exist in FSRS spectra
beneath the vibrational contrasts.[12,24] Such a background
is not a big issue for spectroscopic characterization with good signal-to-noise
ratio but would largely complicate the interpretation for demanding
imaging applications, in which unambiguous differentiation of on-resonance
and off-resonance (ideally with vanishing contrasts) contributions
is essential. Because the off-resonance background carries noise and
is usually not spectrally flat beneath the on-resonance signal, a
simple on–off subtraction may not work well for imaging analysis.If rigorous resonance as in IR895 quickly brings up the background
by evoking a combination of electronically enhanced multipathway backgrounds,
would proper detuning away from the rigorous resonance help attenuate
the electronic background and hence restore the chemical selectivity?
Wei. et al. reported an electronic preresonance SRS (EPR-SRS) scheme
by shifting the excitation to an electronic preresonance (EPR) window,
in between the rigorous resonance and the nonresonance regions.[56] In this scenario, the pump laser frequency (ωpump) is tuned away from the molecular absorption maximum (ω0) into a region of 2Γe< ω0 – ωpump < 6Γe (Γe is the homogeneous line width of the electronic transition,
∼700 cm–1) (Figure e). These two boundaries are set to ensure
a fine balance between achievable EPR-Raman enhancement (with more
then 104 EF) and fine chemical selectivity with a sufficiently
attenuated electronic background (S/B > 5). A representative near-infrared
absorbing dye in this EPR-SRS region is ATTO740 (ω0 – ωpump ≈ 3Γe),
whose EPR-SRS spectrum is essentially free from electronic background.
The high detection sensitivity, sharp Raman resonance, and vanishing
background could be all evidenced from the EPR-SRS images of ATTO740
click-labeled EdU for newly synthesized DNA in mammalian cells (Figure a,b; the corresponding
off-resonance image is nearly zero by tuning the λpump away for only 2 nm). Such exquisite chemical selectivity is well
beyond what could be achieved by typical absorption or fluorescence
detections in which a 2 nm shift in excitation wavelength would result
in little difference in signal/image generation.
Figure 3
EPR-SRS imaging of specific
cellular targets. (a) On-resonance
EPR-SRS imaging of ATTO740-labeled 5-ethynyl-2′-deoxyuridine
(EdU) by click-chemistry for newly synthesized DNA in HeLa cells,
targeting the double-bond vibrational peak of ATTO740 at 1640 cm–1. (b) Off-resonance (1616 cm–1)
imaging of the same sample as that in (a) by tuning the pump wavelength
away for 2 nm. (c–f) EPR-SRS imaging of ATTO740 immunolabeled
α-tubulin (c), Tom20 (d, Mitochondria marker), Giantin (e, Golgi
marker), and fibrillarin (f, Nucleoli marker) in HeLa cells. (g) EPR-SRS
imaging of methylene blue, a known drug with low fluorescent quantum
yield, in live HeLa cells. (h) EPR-SRS imaging of nonfluorescent oxidation
product 4,4′-dichloro-5,5′-dibromoindigo from X-gal
hydrolysis in live E. coli. Scale bar,
10 μm.
EPR-SRS imaging of specific
cellular targets. (a) On-resonance
EPR-SRS imaging of ATTO740-labeled 5-ethynyl-2′-deoxyuridine
(EdU) by click-chemistry for newly synthesized DNA in HeLa cells,
targeting the double-bond vibrational peak of ATTO740 at 1640 cm–1. (b) Off-resonance (1616 cm–1)
imaging of the same sample as that in (a) by tuning the pump wavelength
away for 2 nm. (c–f) EPR-SRS imaging of ATTO740 immunolabeled
α-tubulin (c), Tom20 (d, Mitochondria marker), Giantin (e, Golgi
marker), and fibrillarin (f, Nucleoli marker) in HeLa cells. (g) EPR-SRS
imaging of methylene blue, a known drug with low fluorescent quantum
yield, in live HeLa cells. (h) EPR-SRS imaging of nonfluorescent oxidation
product 4,4′-dichloro-5,5′-dibromoindigo from X-gal
hydrolysis in live E. coli. Scale bar,
10 μm.The achievable detection
sensitivity of EPR-SRS could be down to
250 nM for ATTO740 (which is about 30–50 molecules in the laser
focus) with a 1 ms time constant.[56] As
such, the sensitivity of EPR-SRS is approaching that of a commercial
fluorescence microscope, opening up numerous possibilities for vibrational
imaging of specific molecular targets in biological samples (Figure c–f). In addition,
high photostability is another appealing factor for the EPR-SRS region
because the pump laser is not directly exciting the absorption peak
of the molecule. It was shown that 97% of ATTO740 was maintained even
after 100 frames of continuous scanning,[56] a feat difficult to obtain even with highly photostable dyes used
for fluorescence imaging.[59] In addition
to fluorescent molecules, absorbing-only (nonfluorescent or with very
low fluorescent quantum yield) chromophores could also be probed by
EPR-SRS with good sensitivity and high specificity (Figure g,h).It is natural to
next ask what the physical origin is for such
existence of a unique preresonance region. In particular, how is it
possible to sufficiently amplify the electronically coupled vibrational
signals without exciting much real electronic population? We could
seek some insights from the excitation frequency dependence for both
resonant Raman cross sections and electronic absorption cross sections,
respectively. The theory of preresonance Raman was first worked out
by Andreas C. Albrecht, who derived the Albrecht A-term preresonance
approximation equation for totally symmetric transitions under a strong
dominating electronic transition almost 60 years ago[14,60]ωvib is
the vibrational transition
energy and K is a collection of frequency-independent
factors of the Raman dyes. This equation could well describe the EPR-SRS
measurements on dyes across a wide spectrum of absorptions by assuming
dye-independent oscillator strength and ground-to-excited state Franck–Condon
factors.[56] We note that here the EPR-Raman
cross sections are dependent on the frequency detuning (ω0 – ωpump) to its fourth power.As a comparison, the molecular absorption spectrum in the condensed
phase may be modeled by a pseudo-Voigt profile[61,62]in which L(ν) is the
Lorentzian distribution for homogeneous line broadening and G(ν) is the Gaussian distribution for inhomogeneous
line broadening. Taking the measured absorption spectrum of ATTO740
in solution as a reference, Γe = 670 cm–1 and f = 0.98 best fit its absorption profile, largely
following a Gaussian distribution, consistent with the known conclusion
that absorption spectra in solution are largely inhomogeneously broadened.
We then overplotted eqs and 2 and normalized the values in reference
to the numbers detuned away by 1.5Γe. It became obvious
that the Raman signal from eq decays much slower than the absorption signal (eq ) in the preresonance region of
the experiment (Figure , 820 nm (detuned away by 2Γe) to 920 nm (detuned
away by 4Γe)). This comparison illustrates that virtual-state
mediated preresonance Raman processes follow a slower decay as a function
of frequency detuning in the defined preresonance regime compared
to real-state mediated absorption transitions.
Figure 4
Signal dependence on
the pump laser wavelength (also the frequency
detuning (ω0 – ωpump)): Electronic
preresonance Raman (blue) and absorption (red) spectra, normalized
to 1.5Γe away from the absorption maximum.
Signal dependence on
the pump laser wavelength (also the frequency
detuning (ω0 – ωpump)): Electronic
preresonance Raman (blue) and absorption (red) spectra, normalized
to 1.5Γe away from the absorption maximum.Qualitatively, such slower signal
decay behavior of EPR-SRS might
also be understood by the frequency detuning dependence of absorption
and Raman on χ(1) and χ(3), respectively.
For the EPR-SRS process, under a strong electronic transition and
the adiabatic approximation, χ(3) could be written
as[58]in which ωStokes is the Stokes
photon frequency, Γvib is the line width of vibrational
transition, and ωge is electronic transition frequency.
g and e are ground and excited electronic states. |0), |1), and |υ)
are ground, first, and intermediate vibrational states, respectively. M is the dipole moment operator.Under (or close to)
the Raman resonsance (i.e., ωpump – ωStokes ≈ ωvib), eq could be rewritten
asHere, because the cross
section of SRS is
known to be proportional to the imaginary part of χ(3),[58] it hence indicates that the EPR-SRS
signal is approximated to be proportional to the real part of the
curly bracketed terms of eq , i.e., for
summation over each υ and then
squared over.As a comparison, linear absorption and dispersion
each follow the
imaginary- and real part changes of χ(1), respectivelyExcept for the extra squared
factor, which
is related to χ(3) describing a higher-order optical
process and also consistent with Albrecht A-term’s fourth-power
dependence on the frequency detuning (eq ), a qualitatively similar dependence of resonance
Raman (the imaginary part of eq ) versus linear dispersion (the real part of eq ) on frequency detuning could be
clearly spotted. Therefore, the differential frequency dependence
between resonance Raman and linear absorption is analogous to the
more familiar relationship between dispersion and absorption, in which
the real part of χ(1) (dispersion) is well-known
to decay much slower compared to the imaginary part of χ(1) (absorption) after a certain detuning range (e.g., in the
EPR range) (Figure ). Although being approximate and qualitative, this analogy could
provide an intuitively physical picture for why such a peculiar EPR-Raman
region exists with enhancement of electronically coupled vibrational
signals over electronic backgrounds.
Figure 5
Dependence of the imaginary part (black
line, i.e., absorption)
and the real part (blue line, i.e., dispersion) of χ(1) on the laser frequency (ωpump) detuning from the
electronic transition energy (ωge).
Dependence of the imaginary part (black
line, i.e., absorption)
and the real part (blue line, i.e., dispersion) of χ(1) on the laser frequency (ωpump) detuning from the
electronic transition energy (ωge).We next quantitatively analyze the
EPR-SRS cross sections and the
essential contributing factors for comprehensively understanding and
better developing EPR-SRS microscopy. The spontaneous Raman cross
section for the standard C–O vibration at 1030 cm–1 in methanol (σspon, Raman (C–O))
was reported to be 2.1 × 10–30 cm2 under 785 nm excitation.[63] Extrapolating
from 785 nm using the ω3pumpωStokes dependence to the SRS excitation wavelength of λpump ≈ 960 nm and λStokes ≈
1064 nm, σspon, Raman(C–O) becomes
0.9 × 10–30 cm2. As shown in Figure a, the measured SRS
signal of C–O in pure methanol (∼24.7 M in concentration)
is (ΔIp/Ipump)SRS = 1.7 × 10–4 under a Stokes
laser power (PStokes) of 120 mW. With
a laser excitation volume of about 2 × 10–16 L, 24.7 M corresponds to 3 × 109 C–O bonds
in the laser focus. With a laser waist area of about 2 × 10–9 cm2, the relative spontaneous Raman signal
(ΔIp/I)spon, Raman for C–O in pure methanol would be (0.9 × 10–30 cm2) × (3 × 109)/(2 × 10–9 cm2) ≈ 1.35 × 10–12. We can then calculate the stimulated Raman EFSRS = (rSRS/rspon, Raman) to be (ΔIp/Ipump)SRS/(ΔIp/Ipump)spon, Raman ≈
(1.7 × 10–4)/(1.35 × 10–12) ≈ 1.3 × 108, comparable to that estimated
before by both SRS microscopy and FSRS spectroscopy.[24,27] This stimulated Raman amplification factor is physically meaningful
as it describes the inherent rate acceleration of vibrational activation
as a result of quantum stimulation from the Stokes beam and it is
independent of the targeted vibrational modes. Under the microscopy
configuration, the SRS cross section of C–O (σSRS(C–O)) thus becomes (0.9 × 10–30 cm2) × (1.3 × 108) = 1.2 × 10–22 cm2.
Figure 6
SRS spectrum of pure methanol (a) and EPR-SRS spectrum
of 100 μM
ATTO740 in DMSO (b) acquired with the same laser parameters. On-sample
laser powers: Ppump = 24 mW and PStokes = 120 mW.
SRS spectrum of pure methanol (a) and EPR-SRS spectrum
of 100 μM
ATTO740 in DMSO (b) acquired with the same laser parameters. On-sample
laser powers: Ppump = 24 mW and PStokes = 120 mW.Under the same SRS laser excitation powers, the EPR-SRS signal
of conjugated C=C vibration in ATTO740 (100 μM) is measured
to be (ΔIp/I)SRS = 1.1 × 10–4 (Figure b). After scaling the concentrations, these
two measurements (Figure a,b) yield EFEPR = [(ΔIp/I)SRS, ATTO740/(ΔIp/Ipump)SRS, C–O ] × [cC–O, methanol/cATTO740] of (1.1 × 10–4)/(1.7 × 10–4) × (24.7 M/100 μM) ≈ 1.6 × 105 when comparing ATTO740 to the C–O mode in methanol. This
EFEPR value is close to that reported before of 106 when near resonance.[12,63] It is worth mentioning
again that, although this number is still 1 order of magnitude away
from EFs under rigorous resonance conditions,[12] such an EPR region is highly beneficial for attenuating the electronic
backgrounds and achieving high vibrational selectivity, as evidenced
by the EPR-SRS images (Figure ). The overall EPR-SRS cross section of ATTO740 hence reaches
(1.2 × 10–22 cm2) × (1.6 ×
105) = 1.9 × 10–17 cm2, only an order of magnitude away from typical σabs, accounting for the superb EPR-SRS sensitivity down to 30–50
molecules. It is also worth mentioning that the overall EF for EPR-SRS
(EFEPR-SRS = EFEPR × EFSRS) compared to the nonresonance spontaneous Raman thus reaches about
(1.6 × 105) × (1.3 × 108) = 2.1
× 1013, a value very close to the highest achievable
overall EF in SERRS. With further optimization of dyes and lasers
(e.g., shorter pulse width or lower repetition rate) to gap the remaining
1 order of magnitude of sensitivity, EPR-SRS could serve as a complement
or might even an alternative to fluorescence microscopy.One
of the distinctive applications for EPR-SRS microscopy is supermultiplex
optical imaging to untangle the intrinsically complex biological systems,
a highly sought-after technique in the incoming era of systems biology
and big-data science and technology. Because the vibrational line
width (∼10 cm–1) is about 100 times narrower
compared to fluorescence microscopy (∼1500 cm–1 due to fast electronic dephasing), EPR-SRS in principle would offer
100 times more resolvable colors. Toward this goal, Wei et al. then
devised a novel vibrational palette, in which each Raman-active dye
bears a conjugated triple bond (i.e., nitrile or alkyne) and presents
a single narrow EPR-SRS peak in the desired cell-silent Raman spectral
window. This series of new dyes is termed MARS (MAnhanttan Raman Scattering)
dyes.[56] Using the newly developed MARS
dyes in the near-infrared (∼650–800 nm) and merging
with the orthogonal fluorophores in the visible range (∼400–650
nm), eight-color imaging on the same set of neuronal cell samples
is demonstrated (Figure ). This number could be further increased with future engineering
of dye molecules to provide higher signals as well as better-resolved
Raman peaks.[64] Moreover, the supermultiplex
capability of the EPR-SRS method could go beyond imaging to generating
broad impacts in other fields of photonics, such as flow cytometry
and data security.
Figure 7
Representative eight-color tandem EPR-SRS and fluorescence
imaging
on the same set of neuronal cells. EPR-SRS targets: HPG (a, red, l-homopropargylglycine, for proteins synthesized in the pulse
period for 12 h, labeled with MARS2228); AHA (a, green, l-azidohomoalanine, proteins synthesized in the chase period next
for 10 h, labeled with Alexa 647); βIII-tubulin (b, gray, neurons,
labeled with MARS2200); myelin basic protein (c, MBP, orange, oligodendrocytes,
labeled with MARS2176); and glial fibrillary acidic protein (c, GFAP,
magenta, astrocytes and neural stem cells, labeled with MARS2147).
Fluorescence: NeuN (b, blue, neurons, labeled with Alexa568); LipidTox
(b, cyan, lipid droplets); Nucblue (c, yellow, total DNA). Scale bars,
10 μm.
Representative eight-color tandem EPR-SRS and fluorescence
imaging
on the same set of neuronal cells. EPR-SRS targets: HPG (a, red, l-homopropargylglycine, for proteins synthesized in the pulse
period for 12 h, labeled with MARS2228); AHA (a, green, l-azidohomoalanine, proteins synthesized in the chase period next
for 10 h, labeled with Alexa 647); βIII-tubulin (b, gray, neurons,
labeled with MARS2200); myelin basic protein (c, MBP, orange, oligodendrocytes,
labeled with MARS2176); and glial fibrillary acidic protein (c, GFAP,
magenta, astrocytes and neural stem cells, labeled with MARS2147).
Fluorescence: NeuN (b, blue, neurons, labeled with Alexa568); LipidTox
(b, cyan, lipid droplets); Nucblue (c, yellow, total DNA). Scale bars,
10 μm.In retrospect, many biological
discoveries were driven by technical
innovations that explored less-charted spectroscopic principles, with
assistance from novel matching reporters. The previously less-explored
EPR-SRS imaging exhibits the desired combination of sub-μM high
sensitivity and narrow chemical selectivity, merging the best of two
worlds of electronic and vibrational microspectroscopy. We believe
that EPR-SRS microscopy together with the newly developed MARS palette
could become a valuable systems-method helping to elucidate complex
biochemical and biophysical processes. Therefore, we hope this Perspective
contributes to a deeper and more quantitative understanding of the
fundamental physical principles underlying this new technique and
help push its further development.
Authors: Brian G Saar; Christian W Freudiger; Jay Reichman; C Michael Stanley; Gary R Holtom; X Sunney Xie Journal: Science Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Dan Fu; Yong Yu; Andrew Folick; Erin Currie; Robert V Farese; Tsung-Huang Tsai; Xiaoliang Sunney Xie; Meng C Wang Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Lu Wei; Zhixing Chen; Lixue Shi; Rong Long; Andrew V Anzalone; Luyuan Zhang; Fanghao Hu; Rafael Yuste; Virginia W Cornish; Wei Min Journal: Nature Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Kang Soo Lee; Fátima C Pereira; Márton Palatinszky; Lars Behrendt; Uria Alcolombri; David Berry; Michael Wagner; Roman Stocker Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Sian Sloan-Dennison; Chelsea M Zoltowski; Patrick Z El-Khoury; Zachary D Schultz Journal: J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Dongkwan Lee; Chenxi Qian; Haomin Wang; Lei Li; Kun Miao; Jiajun Du; Daria M Shcherbakova; Vladislav V Verkhusha; Lihong V Wang; Lu Wei Journal: J Chem Phys Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 3.488