PlumX Metrics
Embed PlumX Metrics

Evaluation of pulsed-FRAP and conventional-FRAP for determination of protein mobility in prokaryotic cells

PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 6, Issue: 9, Page: e25664
2011
  • 14
    Citations
  • 0
    Usage
  • 40
    Captures
  • 0
    Mentions
  • 0
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

Article Description

Background: Macromolecule mobility is often quantified with Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP). Throughout literature a wide range of diffusion coefficients for GFP in the cytoplasm of Escherichia coli (3 to 14 μm /s) is reported using FRAP-based approaches. In this study, we have evaluated two of these methods: pulsed-FRAP and "conventional"-FRAP. Principal Findings: To address the question whether the apparent discrepancy in the diffusion data stems from methodological differences or biological variation, we have implemented and compared the two techniques on bacteria grown and handled in the same way. The GFP diffusion coefficients obtained under normal osmotic conditions and upon osmotic upshift were very similar for the different techniques. Conclusions: Our analyses indicate that the wide range of values reported for the diffusion coefficient of GFP in live cells are due to experimental conditions and/or biological variation rather than methodological differences. © 2011 Mika et al.

Bibliographic Details

http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=80053291444&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21980523; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025664; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g001; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025664; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025664&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025664&type=printable; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025664; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g002

Jacek T. Mika; Victor Krasnikov; Geert van den Bogaart; Foppe de Haan; Bert Poolman; Marek Cebecauer

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

Multidisciplinary

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know