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
- 14Citations
- 40Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations14
- Citation Indexes14
- CrossRef14
- 14
- Captures40
- Readers40
- 40
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
10.1371/journal.pone.0025664; 10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0025664.g003
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
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know