from localization to colocalization - biop -homepage localization... · · 2017-07-03• complex...
TRANSCRIPT
EPFL–SV–PTBIOP
BIOP COURSE 2015
FROM LOCALIZATION
TO INTERACTION
EPFL–SV–PTBIOP
COLOCALIZATIONTYPICAL EXAMPLE
Colocalization: The presence of two or more fluorophores on
the same physical structure (in a cell).
http://www.olympusconfocal.com/applications/colocalization.html
Actin
Alexa488Vinculin
Alexa568
MICROSCOPYLOW PASS FILTERING
Object
Imag
e
EPFL–SV–PTBIOP
COLOCALIZATION
• Two different molecules can never be at the same physical spot at the same time.
• Colocalization seen in images is coming from the low-pass filtering of the image formation in light microscopy.
• Colocalization is an artificial phenomenon and therefore always relative.
EPFL–SV–PTBIOP
FÖRSTER RESONANCE
ENERGY TRANSFER
S0
S1
Donor
S0
S1
Acceptor
distance
EPFL–SV–PTBIOP
FÖRSTER RESONANCE
ENERGY TRANSFER
S0
S1
Donor
S0
S1
Acceptor
distance
FRET is the non-radiative transfer of excitation energy from a donor
fluorophore to a nearby acceptor.
(Förster, Ann. Phys. 1948 : 55-75)
EPFL–SV–PTBIOP
ENERGY TRANSFER
EFFICIENCY
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 5 10 15
distance r / nm
En
erg
ytr
an
sfe
re
ffic
ien
cy R0<R0<R0
𝐸 =1
1 +𝑟𝑅0
6
ENERGY TRANSFER
EFFICIENCY
𝑹𝟎 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟏𝟏 ∙ 𝜿𝟐 ∙ 𝒏−𝟒 ∙ 𝑸𝒀𝑫 ∙ 𝜺𝑨 ∙ 𝟎
∞𝒇𝑫 𝝀 𝒇𝑨 𝝀 𝝀𝟒𝒅𝝀
𝟎
∞𝒇𝑫 𝝀 𝒅𝝀
𝟏𝟔
Förster distance (𝑅0) is dependant on a number of factors,
including:
• the fluorescence quantum yield of the donor in the absence
of acceptor (𝑄𝑌𝐷)
• the extinction coefficient of the acceptor (𝜀𝐴)• the refractive index of the solution (𝑛)
• the dipole angular orientation of each molecule (κ2)
• the spectral overlap integral of the donor and acceptor
EPFL–SV–PTBIOP
ENERGY TRANSFER
EFFICIENCY
Lam et al. Nature Meth 2012 p1005
See also: Sun at al. Cytometry PartA 2013 p780
FRET APPLICATIONS IN BIOLOGYPROTEIN-PROTEIN INTERACTION
3 nm
FRET Low/No
FRETNo
FRET
FRET APPLICATIONS IN BIOLOGYINTRAMOLECULAR SENSOR
3 nm
FRETNo
FRET
Ligand, small molecule, analyte
Miyawaki A, et al. Nature. 1997 Aug 28;388(6645):882-7.
Fluorescent indicators for Ca2+ based on green fluorescent proteins and
calmodulin
FRET APPLICATIONS IN BIOLOGYINTRAMOLECULAR SENSOR
Masharina A, et al. J Am Chem Soc. 2012 Nov 21;134(46):19026-34.
A fluorescent sensor for GABA and synthetic GABA(B) receptor ligands.
FRET EFFICIENCYSUMMARY
FRET efficiency is only apparent… but can be very precise as
well…The measured FRET efficiency (E) depends on a number of factors:
Ro
the affinity of the interaction between donor and acceptor
the stoichiometry of donor and acceptor-labeled proteins
the presence of unlabeled molecules
the ratio of the number of labels per protein
the saturation of the donor
The calculated FRET efficiency is an apparent FRET efficiency
EPFL–SV–PTBIOP
FRET DETECTION
S0
S1
Donor
S0
S1
Acceptor
τDA
S0
S1
S0
S1
τD
𝐸 = 1 −𝜏𝐷𝐴𝜏𝐷
FLIM MEASUREMENTTCSPC
Time-correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC)
Records times at which individual photons are detected by photo-multiplier tube (PMT) or an
avalanche photo diode (APD) after a single pulse. The recordings are repeated for additional
pulses
Histogram of the number of events across all of these recorded time points.
From TCSPC Technical note, PicoQuant
FLIM MEASUREMENTPHASE MODULATION
Phase modulation of excitation light source
(typically LED, laser AOTF)
𝜏𝜑= 𝜔−1. 𝑡𝑎𝑛Δ𝜑, 𝜏𝑚= 𝜔−1. 𝑀−2 − 1, where 𝜔 is the frequence
Advantage: camera-based detection fast lifetime image acquisition
possible
In acceptor
photobleaching, the
acceptor molecule of
the FRET pair is
bleached, resulting in
a brightening
(unquenching) of the
donor fluorescence.
Prebleach
Image
B
l
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
Postbleach
Image
Cy3
GF
PACCEPTOR PHOTOBLEACHING
Median
Filtering
Subtraction:
Postbleach – PrebleachDivision:
Subtraction/ Postbleach
An apparent FRET efficiency (product of the efficiency of the FRET
pair and the amount of interacting donor) can be calculated
ACCEPTOR PHOTOBLEACHING
𝐸𝐴 𝑖 = 1 −𝐹𝐷 𝑖
𝐹𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑖𝐷 = 𝐸 ∙ 𝛼𝐷(𝑖)
CFP
only
YFP
only
CFP+
YFP
Channel 1:
460-500 nm
Channel 2:
520-570 nm
RGB
Overlay
CROSS-TALK AND CROSS-
EXCITATION
D
A
D
A
Ratiometric imaging can
only be done in samples
with a fixed stochiometry
of donor and acceptor
(e.g. Cameleons)
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
In samples with variable
stochiometries, the detected
acceptor fluorescence has to
be corrected for emission
cross-talk and for cross-excitation
SENSITIZED EMISSION
DETECTION
Donor channel
Donor excitation
FD
Acceptor channel
Donor excitation
FDA
Acceptor channel
Acceptor excitation
FA
Required images:
=>
FDA corr/FA
Predetermined factors with pure samples of donor and acceptor:
Donor cross-talk : RD
Acceptor cross-excitation : RE
SENSITIZED EMISSION DETECTION
Donor
cross-talk
correction
Acceptor
cross-excitation
correction
FDA corr/FA
SENSITIZED EMISSION DETECTION
Predetermined factors with pure samples of donor and acceptor:
Donor cross-talk : RD
Acceptor cross-excitation : RE
𝐸𝑎 =𝐹𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝐷𝐴
𝐹𝐴
𝐹𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝐷 = 𝐹𝐷𝐴 − 𝐹𝐷 ∙ 𝑅𝐷 − 𝐹𝐴 ∙ 𝑅𝐸
𝐸𝑎 = 𝐶 ∙ 𝐸 ∙ 𝛼𝐴
EPFL–SV–PTBIOP
FRET DETECTION
SUMMARY
• Fluorescence Lifetime Measurement
• Absolute Energy Transfer Efficiency• Dedicated Hardware needed• Complex Data Analysis
• Intensity based Measurements
• Sensitized Emission• Can be realized on wide-field and confocal systems.• Fast and suitable for live-cell imaging• Complex data analysis• Apparent energy transfer efficiency
• Acceptor Photobleaching• Can be realized on any confocal system• Easy data analysis• Potential Artefacts with fluorescent proteins
DYNAMIC CELLULAR PROCESSES
MOVEMENT OF PARTICLES
t=0 t=Dt
N=12 N=12
Transport/movement of particles from left to right and right to left
(steady-state)
N=12 N=12
No transport/movement of particles
MOVEMENT OF PARTICLES
t=0
N=12N=12
V=0 N=12N=12
V=0
No transport/movement of particles
t=Dt
MOVEMENT OF PARTICLES
t=0
N=12
V=12
N=12
V=0
N=12
V=6
N=12
V=6
Transport/movement of particles from left to right and right to left
t=Dt
Bastiaens and Pepperkok (2000), TIBS 25/12
FLUORESCENCE RECOVERY
AFTER PHOTOBLEACHING (FRAP)
1) Introduction
2) FRAP principles
3) FRAP data analysis
4) Related techniques (FLIP, FLAP,
Photoactivation, -conversion
5) Possible limitations
6) New technology developments
OVERVIEW
I: Pre-bleach
II: Bleach
III: Post-bleach
SCHEMATIC OF A FRAP
EXPERIMENT
1) Take a series of images before bleach (same
settings as after the bleach)
2) Apply short local bleach
3) Take images after bleach until the recovery in
the bleached area reaches a plateau
FRAP EXPERIMENT IN
PRACTICE
AOTF upregulation (0-100%):
Linear
Zoom In:
Exponential
2zoomfactor
Speed limitation due to
switching of the scanfield
INTENSITY OF BLEACHING LIGHT
Kappel and Eils, Leica App.Letter 2004
FRAP EXPERIMENTAL DATA
1) Background subtraction
2) Correction for photobleaching during the measurement (whole cell
or neighboring cell as reference)
3) Data normalization (alternative methods)
DATA PROCESSING
TYPICAL FRAP EXPERIMENT
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
-30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110
time / s
no
rma
lize
din
ten
sity
TYPICAL FRAP EXPERIMENT
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
-10 10 30 50
time / s
no
rma
lize
din
ten
sity
time / s
no
rma
lize
din
ten
sity
Mobile
Fraction
Immobile
Fraction
Half Life
(t1/2)
FRAP PARAMETERS
( ) ( )teAtf t 1
A
1-A
Half Life
(t1/2)
½At
t
5.0ln
2/1
CURVE FITTING
1) Mobile and immobile fraction
2) Recovery half-time
Estimation of diffusion coefficient (Axelrod et al.)
w: bleach radius
Assumptions:
- bleached area is disk shaped
- diffusion occurs only in 2D
PARAMETERS OF EXPONENTIAL FIT
𝐷 = 0.88 ∙𝑤2
4 ∙ 𝑡1/2
BINDING REACTIONS
Binding
Site(s)
Diffusion
Binding
Un-
binding
Diffusion: Df
Binding: kon
Unbinding:koff
PURE DIFFUSION
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
no
rma
lize
d i
nte
ns
ity
time / s
w=0.5 m
w=1.0 m
w=2.0 m
w=4.0 m
𝑓 𝑥 = exp −𝜏𝐷2 ∙ 𝑡
∙ 𝐼0𝜏𝐷2 ∙ 𝑡
+ 𝐼1𝜏𝐷2 ∙ 𝑡
𝜏𝐷 =𝑤2
𝐷𝑓
• Circular bleach area
• Analytical Solution (Soumpasis)
• Recovery depends on bleach area
REACTION DOMINATED
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
no
rma
lize
d i
nte
ns
ity
time / s
koff
=16 s-1
koff
=16 s-1
koff
=16 s-1
koff
=16 s-1
𝑓 𝑥 = 𝐶𝑒𝑞𝑢 1 − exp −𝑘𝑜𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑡 𝐶𝑒𝑞𝑢 =𝑘𝑜𝑛
𝑘𝑜𝑛 + 𝑘𝑜𝑓𝑓
Lippincott-Schwartz et al. Nature CellBio Supp. 2003Phair and Mistelli, Nature Reviews MolCellBio, 2001
Multiple populations with differing diffusion rates => multi-component
equations
DIFFUSION VS. BINDING
Lippincott-Schwartz et al. Nature CellBio Supp. 2003
Potential explanation
e.g. immobile fraction, physical
separation
fixed samples, varition of the bleach
spot size
binding, active transport => modelling
photodamage
Problem:
Partial recovery:
Reversible photobleaching:
Non-diffusive behaviour:
Different values in consecutive
measurements:
POTENTIAL FRAP ARTEFACTS
Phair and Mistelli, Nature Reviews MolCellBio, 2001
FLUORESCENCE LOSS IN
PHOTOBLEACHING
Patterson and Lippincott-Schwartz (2002), Science 297:1873-1877
Irradiation at
405 nm
Excitation at 488 nm
PHOTOACTIVATION
PHOTOCONVERSION
Other popular
photomanipulatable Proteins:
Kaede
mEOS
DRONPA
But oligomerization especially
when expressed in cells is
often an issue.
PHOTOACTIVATIONPA-GFP
Patterson and Lippincott-Schwartz (2002), Science 297:1873-1877
FRAP OUTLOOK
Mueller F. et al. 2009
Curr. Opin. Cell Biology
Diffusion
Enzymatic Activity
Phase Fluctuations
Conformational Dynamics
Rotational Motion
Protein Folding
Example of processes that could generate fluctuations
FCS
FLUCTUATIONS ARE THE SIGNAL
EPFL–SV–PTBIOP
FLUORESCENCE CORRELATION
SPECTROSCOPY (FCS)
Schwille P. and Haustein E. 2007 Annu. Rev. Biophy. Biomol Struct.
http://www.cellmigration.org/resource/imaging/imaging_
approaches_correlation_microscopy.shtml
Sample Space
Observation
Volume
1. The Rate of Motion
2. The Concentration
of Particles
3. Changes in the Particle
Fluorescence while under
Observation, for example
conformational transitions
What is Observed?
GENERATING FLUCTUATIONS
BY MOTION
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3518.8
19.0
19.2
19.4
19.6
19.8
Time (s)
De
tect
ed
Inte
nsi
ty (
kcp
s)
10-9
10-7
10-5
10-3
10-1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Time(s)
G(t
)
G(t) F(t)F(t t)
F(t)2
G(0) 1/NAs time (tau) approaches 0
Diffusion
THE AUTOCORRELATION
FUNCTION
EPFL–SV–PTBIOP
FRAP & FCS SUMMARY
•FRAP and FCS can be used to investigate the movement (e.g. Diffusion) of cellular components.
•FRAP can be realized on every commercial microscope.
•FRAP requires overexpression of the component to investigate.
•Photobleaching is toxic!Better: Usage of photo-convertebale variants.
•FCS requires a dedicated microscope setup.
•FCS works with (very) low concentrations.
•Data analyis is complex for FRAP & FCS.