| Literature DB >> 34056637 |
Jonathan B Grimm1, Liangqi Xie1, Jason C Casler2, Ronak Patel1, Ariana N Tkachuk1, Natalie Falco1, Heejun Choi1, Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz1, Timothy A Brown1, Benjamin S Glick2, Zhe Liu1, Luke D Lavis1.
Abstract
Fluorescence microscopy relies on dyes that absorb and then emit photons. In addition to fluorescence, fluorophores can undergo photochemical processes that decrease quantum yield or result in spectral shifts and irreversible photobleaching. Chemical strategies that suppress these undeEntities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34056637 PMCID: PMC8154212 DOI: 10.1021/jacsau.1c00006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JACS Au ISSN: 2691-3704
Figure 1Photophysics of rhodamines and methods to improve rhodamine properties. (a) Photophysics of tetramethylrhodamine (TMR, 1). (b) Structures of rigidified rhodamines 3–4. (c) Structures of cyclic amine-containing rhodamines 5–6. (c) Structures of α-quaternary rhodamines 7–9.
Figure 2Deuterated tetramethylrhodamine. (a) Synthesis of 1. (b) Normalized absorption (abs) and fluorescence emission (em) spectra of 1 and 1. (c, d) LC–MS traces of 1 (c) and 1 (d) before and after photobleaching using 560 nm (1.02 W/cm2, 6 h). (e, f) Sequential absorption spectra of 1 (e) and 1 (f) during photobleaching using 560 nm (1.02 W/cm2). The magenta arrows highlight the shift in λabs and absorption intensity over time.
Spectral Properties of Rhodaminesa
All values are in 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.3 except for KL–Z, which was measured in 1:1 v/v dioxane:H2O.
Figure 3Photostability and chromostability of 5, 5, 6, and 6. (a) Photochemical dealkylation of 5 to form aldehyde 19. (b, c) LC–MS traces of 5 (b) and 5 (c) before and after photobleaching. (d, e) Sequential fluorescence emission spectra of (d) 5 and 5 or (e) 6 and 6 during photobleaching using a 532 nm laser (0.96 W/cm2; 40 spectra taken over 40 min). The magenta arrows highlight the shift in λem and intensity over time.
Figure 4Performance of rhodamine ligands. (a) Structures of HaloTag ligands 20, 20, 21, and 21. (b) Φf of HaloTag protein conjugates of 20 and 20. (c) Confocal microscopy images of live U2OS cells expressing HaloTag–histone H2B incubated with HaloTag ligands 20, 20, 21, and 21 (200 nM, 2 h); ex/em = 561 nm/565–632 nm; scale bars: 21 μm. (d, e) SPT intensity (kilocounts per second, kcps) (d) or duration (s) (e) from cells labeled with 20, 20, or 21. All error bars: SEM.
Spectral Properties of Other Deuterated Dyesa
All values in 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.3.
Spectral Properties of Red-Shifted Rhodamine Variantsa
All values in 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.3 except for KL–Z, which was measured in 1:1 v/v dioxane:H2O.
ε > 150 000 M–1cm–1 in EtOH or TFE with 1% v/v TFA.
Figure 5Performance of Si–rhodamine ligands. (a) Structures of HaloTag ligands 30, 30, 31, and 31. (b) Φ of HaloTag protein conjugates of 30 or 30. (c) Confocal microscopy images of live U2OS cells expressing HaloTag–histone H2B incubated with HaloTag ligands 30, 30, 31, and 31 (200 nM, 2 h); ex/em = 640 nm/656–700 nm; scale bars: 21 μm. (d, e) SPT intensity (kcps) (d) or duration (s) (e) from cells labeled with 30, 30, or 31. (f) Intensity from S. cerevisiae labeled with 30, 30, or 31 (1 μM, 30 min). (g) Image montage of S. cerevisiae labeled with 30 or 31; ex/em = 633 nm/650–795 nm; scale bar: 2 μm. All error bars: SEM.