| Literature DB >> 30084526 |
Chi Chen1, Lijiao Ao2, Yu-Tang Wu1, Vjona Cifliku1, Marcelina Cardoso Dos Santos1, Emmanuel Bourrier3, Martina Delbianco4,5, David Parker4, Jurriaan M Zwier3, Liang Huang6, Niko Hildebrandt1.
Abstract
Fluorescence barcoding based on nanoparticles provides many advantages for multiparameter imaging. However, creating different concentration-independent codes without mixing various nanoparticles and by using single-wavelength excitation and emission for multiplexed cellular imaging is extremely challenging. Herein, we report the development of quantum dots (QDs) with two different SiO2 shell thicknesses (6 and 12 nm) that are coated with two different lanthanide complexes (Tb and Eu). FRET from the Tb or Eu donors to the QD acceptors resulted in four distinct photoluminescence (PL) decays, which were encoded by simple time-gated (TG) PL intensity detection in three individual temporal detection windows. The well-defined single-nanoparticle codes were used for live cell imaging and a one-measurement distinction of four different cells in a single field of view. This single-color barcoding strategy opens new opportunities for multiplexed labeling and tracking of cells.Entities:
Keywords: FRET; imaging; lanthanides; photoluminescence lifetimes; quantum dots
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30084526 PMCID: PMC6391968 DOI: 10.1002/anie.201807585
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl ISSN: 1433-7851 Impact factor: 15.336
Scheme 1a) QDs with SiO2 coatings of different thicknesses (x=6 or 12 nm) functionalized with Eu‐1 or Lumi4‐Tb for single‐wavelength temporal PL barcoding. b) The RGB encoding principle based on three distinct TG PL intensity fractions for each of the four FRET‐specific PL decays (see Figure 1 for technical details).
Figure 1a) QD acceptor PL decay curves of each single nanoparticle code. b) TG PL intensity (RGB) ratios of each single nanoparticle code calculated from the TG intensities in the red, green, and blue TG detection windows in (a).
Optical characteristics of Tb, Eu, and QD/SiO2 with their FRET pairs.
|
|
| Emission filter (nm)[a] |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lumi4‐Tb | 26 000 [340 nm] | 0.79 | 490/20 | 2.7 ms |
| Eu‐1 | 58 000 [330 nm] | 0.48 | 567/15 | 1.1 ms |
| QD/SiO2(6 nm) | 599 500 [610 nm] | – | 640/14 | ca. 12 ns |
| QD/SiO2(12 nm) | 1 770 000 [610 nm] | – | 640/14 | ca. 11 ns |
[a] See Figure S6 for filter spectra. Lumi4‐Tb and Eu‐1 filters were selected to measure their bluest emission bands with the least possible overlap with the QD emission band. The QD filter was selected to avoid overlap with Tb and Eu PL. [b] See Figure S7 for PL decay curves. [c] Amplitude‐averaged decay time that takes into account the complete decay curves, which contain FRET‐quenched and unquenched (lanthanide complexes that do not participate in FRET) components. FRET‐quenched average decay times, FRET efficiencies, and donor–acceptor distances can be found in Table S1.
Figure 2TG PL images (top) and high‐resolution TG PL images (bottom) in different temporal detection windows (time ranges on top), their overlay, and bright field (BF) images of HeLa cells labeled with individual nanoparticle codes: a) Tb–QD/SiO2(6 nm); b) Tb–QD/SiO2(12 nm); c) Eu–QD/SiO2(6 nm); d) Eu–QD/SiO2(12 nm). Scale bar (top right): 20 μm; λ ex=349 nm; λ em=640 nm.
Figure 3TG PL images of differently encoded HeLa cells: a) 0.05–0.5 ms; b) 0.5–1 ms; c) 1–3 ms; d) overlay; e) bright‐field image; red arrow: Tb–QD/SiO2(6 nm), blue arrows: Tb–QD/SiO2(12 nm), yellow arrows: Eu–QD/SiO2(6 nm), green arrows: Eu–QD/SiO2(12 nm). Scale bar (e): 20 μm; λ ex=349 nm; λ em=640 nm.