Fluorescence recovery after photobleaching

Last updated October 29, 2024

Fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) is a method for determining the kinetics of diffusion through tissue or cells. It is capable of quantifying the two-dimensional lateral diffusion of a molecularly thin film containing fluorescently labeled probes, or to examine single cells. This technique is very useful in biological studies of cell membrane diffusion and protein binding. In addition, surface deposition of a fluorescing phospholipid bilayer (or monolayer) allows the characterization of hydrophilic (or hydrophobic) surfaces in terms of surface structure and free energy.

Experimental setup

The basic apparatus comprises an optical microscope, a light source and some fluorescent probe. Fluorescent emission is contingent upon absorption of a specific optical wavelength or color which restricts the choice of lamps. Most commonly, a broad spectrum mercury or xenon source is used in conjunction with a color filter. The technique begins by saving a background image of the sample before photobleaching. Next, the light source is focused onto a small patch of the viewable area either by switching to a higher magnification microscope objective or with laser light of the appropriate wavelength. The fluorophores in this region receive high intensity illumination which causes their fluorescence lifetime to quickly elapse (limited to roughly 10⁵ photons before extinction). Now the image in the microscope is that of a uniformly fluorescent field with a noticeable dark spot. As Brownian motion proceeds, the still-fluorescing probes will diffuse throughout the sample and replace the non-fluorescent probes in the bleached region. This diffusion proceeds in an ordered fashion, analytically determinable from the diffusion equation. Assuming a Gaussian profile for the bleaching beam, the diffusion constant D can be simply calculated from:

D={\frac {w^{2}}{4t_{D}}}

where w is the radius of the beam and t_D is the "Characteristic" diffusion time.^[1]^[2]

Applications

Supported lipid bilayers

Originally, the FRAP technique was intended for use as a means to characterize the mobility of individual lipid molecules within a cell membrane.^[1] While providing great utility in this role, current research leans more toward investigation of artificial lipid membranes. Supported by hydrophilic or hydrophobic substrates (to produce lipid bilayers or monolayers respectively) and incorporating membrane proteins, these biomimetic structures are potentially useful as analytical devices for determining the identity of unknown substances, understanding cellular transduction, and identifying ligand binding sites.

Protein binding

This technique is commonly used in conjunction with green fluorescent protein (GFP) fusion proteins, where the studied protein is fused to a GFP. When excited by a specific wavelength of light, the protein will fluoresce.^[3] When the protein that is being studied is produced with the GFP, then the fluorescence can be tracked. Photodestroying the GFP, and then watching the repopulation into the bleached area can reveal information about protein interaction partners, organelle continuity and protein trafficking.^[4]

If after some time the fluorescence doesn't reach the initial level anymore, then some part of the fluorescence is caused by an immobile fraction (that cannot be replenished by diffusion). Similarly, if the fluorescent proteins bind to static cell receptors, the rate of recovery will be retarded by a factor related to the association and disassociation coefficients of binding. This observation has most recently been exploited to investigate protein binding.^[3]^[5]^[6] Similarly, if the GFP labeled protein is constitutively incorporated into a larger complex, the dynamics of fluorescence recovery will be characterized by the diffusion of the larger complex.^[7]

Applications outside the membrane

FRAP can also be used to monitor proteins outside the membrane. After the protein of interest is made fluorescent, generally by expression as a GFP fusion protein, a confocal microscope is used to photobleach and monitor a region of the cytoplasm,^[3] mitotic spindle, nucleus, or another cellular structure.^[8]^[9] The mean fluorescence in the region can then be plotted versus time since the photobleaching, and the resulting curve can yield kinetic coefficients, such as those for the protein's binding reactions and/or the protein's diffusion coefficient in the medium where it is being monitored.^[10] Often the only dynamics considered are diffusion and binding/unbinding interactions, however, in principle proteins can also move via flow, i.e., undergo directed motion, and this was recognized very early by Axelrod et al.^[1] This could be due to flow of the cytoplasm or nucleoplasm, or transport along filaments in the cell such as microtubules by molecular motors.

The analysis is most simple when the fluorescence recovery is limited by either the rate of diffusion into the bleached area or by rate at which bleached proteins unbind from their binding sites within the bleached area, and are replaced by fluorescent protein. Let us look at these two limits, for the common case of bleaching a GFP fusion protein in a living cell.

Diffusion-limited fluorescence recovery

For a circular bleach spot of radius $w$ and diffusion-dominated recovery, the fluorescence is described by an equation derived by Soumpasis^[11] (which involves modified Bessel functions $I_{0}$ and $I_{1}$ )

f(t)=e^{-2\tau _{D}/t}\left(I_{0}(2\tau _{D}/t)+I_{1}(2\tau _{D}/t)\right)

with $\tau _{D}$ the characteristic timescale for diffusion, and $t$ is the time. $f(t)$ is the normalized fluorescence (goes to 1 as $t$ goes to infinity). The diffusion timescale for a bleached spot of radius $w$ is $\tau _{D}=w^{2}/(4D)$ , with D the diffusion coefficient.

Note that this is for an instantaneous bleach with a step function profile, i.e., the fraction $f_{b}$ of protein assumed to be bleached instantaneously at time $t=0$ is $f_{b}(r)=b,~~r<w$ , and $f_{b}(r)=0,~~r>w$ , for $r$ is the distance from the centre of the bleached area. It is also assumed that the recovery can be modelled by diffusion in two dimensions, that is also both uniform and isotropic. In other words, that diffusion is occurring in a uniform medium so the effective diffusion constant D is the same everywhere, and that the diffusion is isotropic, i.e., occurs at the same rate along all axes in the plane.

In practice, in a cell none of these assumptions will be strictly true.

Bleaching will not be instantaneous. Particularly if strong bleaching of a large area is required, bleaching may take a significant fraction of the diffusion timescale $\tau _{D}$ . Then a significant fraction of the bleached protein will diffuse out of the bleached region actually during bleaching. Failing to take account of this will introduce a significant error into D.^[12]^[13]^[14]
The bleached profile will not be a radial step function. If the bleached spot is effectively a single pixel then the bleaching as a function of position will typically be diffraction limited and determined by the optics of the confocal laser scanning microscope used. This is not a radial step function and also varies along the axis perpendicular to the plane.
Cells are of course three-dimensional not two-dimensional, as is the bleached volume. Neglecting diffusion out of the plane (we take this to be the xy plane) will be a reasonable approximation only if the fluorescence recovers predominantly via diffusion in this plane. This will be true, for example, if a cylindrical volume is bleached with the axis of the cylinder along the z axis and with this cylindrical volume going through the entire height of the cell. Then diffusion along the z axis does not cause fluorescence recovery as all protein is bleached uniformly along the z axis, and so neglecting it, as Soumpasis' equation does, is harmless. However, if diffusion along the z axis does contribute to fluorescence recovery then it must be accounted for.
There is no reason to expect the cell cytoplasm or nucleoplasm to be completely spatially uniform or isotropic.

Thus, the equation of Soumpasis is just a useful approximation, that can be used when the assumptions listed above are good approximations to the true situation, and when the recovery of fluorescence is indeed limited by the timescale of diffusion $\tau _{D}$ . Note that just because the Soumpasis can be fitted adequately to data does not necessarily imply that the assumptions are true and that diffusion dominates recovery.

Reaction-limited recovery

The equation describing the fluorescence as a function of time is particularly simple in another limit. If a large number of proteins bind to sites in a small volume such that there the fluorescence signal is dominated by the signal from bound proteins, and if this binding is all in a single state with an off rate k_off, then the fluorescence as a function of time is given by^[15]

f(t)=1-e^{-k_{\text{off}}t}

Note that the recovery depends on the rate constant for unbinding, k_off, only. It does not depend on the on rate for binding. Although it does depend on a number of assumptions^[15]

The on rate must be sufficiently large in order for the local concentration of bound protein to greatly exceed the local concentration of free protein, and so allow us to neglect the contribution to f of the free protein.
The reaction is a simple bimolecular reaction, where the protein binds to localised sites that do not move significantly during recovery
Exchange is much slower than diffusion (or whatever transport mechanism is responsible for mobility), as only then does the diffusing fraction recovery rapidly and then acts as the source of fluorescent protein that binds and replaces the bound bleached protein and so increases the fluorescence. With r the radius of the bleached spot, this means that the equation is only valid if the bound lifetime $1/k_{\text{off}}>>r^{2}/D$ .

If all these assumptions are satisfied, then fitting an exponential to the recovery curve will give the off rate constant, k_off. However, other dynamics can give recovery curves similar to exponentials, so fitting an exponential does not necessarily imply that recovery is dominated by a simple bimolecular reaction. One way to distinguish between recovery with a rate determined by unbinding and recovery that is limited by diffusion, is to note that the recovery rate for unbinding-limited recovery is independent of the size of the bleached area r, while it scales as $r^{-2}$ , for diffusion-limited recovery. Thus if a small and a large area are bleached, if recovery is limited by unbinding then the recovery rates will be the same for the two sizes of bleached area, whereas if recovery is limited by diffusion then it will be much slower for the larger bleached area.

Diffusion and reaction

In general, the recovery of fluorescence will not be dominated by either simple isotropic diffusion, or by a single simple unbinding rate. There will be both diffusion and binding, and indeed the diffusion constant may not be uniform in space, and there may be more than one type of binding sites, and these sites may also have a non-uniform distribution in space. Flow processes may also be important. This more complex behavior implies that a model with several parameters is required to describe the data; models with only either a single diffusion constant D or a single off rate constant, k_off, are inadequate.

There are models with both diffusion and reaction.^[2] Unfortunately, a single FRAP curve may provide insufficient evidence to reliably and uniquely fit (possibly noisy) experimental data. Sadegh Zadeh et al.^[16] have shown that FRAP curves can be fitted by different pairs of values of the diffusion constant and the on-rate constant, or, in other words, that fits to the FRAP are not unique. This is in three-parameter (on-rate constant, off-rate constant and diffusion constant) fits. Fits that are not unique, are not generally useful.

Thus for models with a number of parameters, a single FRAP experiment may be insufficient to estimate all the model parameters. Then more data is required, e.g., by bleaching areas of different sizes,^[14] determining some model parameters independently, etc.

Related Research Articles

The green fluorescent protein (GFP) is a protein that exhibits green fluorescence when exposed to light in the blue to ultraviolet range. The label GFP traditionally refers to the protein first isolated from the jellyfish Aequorea victoria and is sometimes called avGFP. However, GFPs have been found in other organisms including corals, sea anemones, zoanithids, copepods and lancelets.

In molecular biology and biotechnology, a fluorescent tag, also known as a fluorescent label or fluorescent probe, is a molecule that is attached chemically to aid in the detection of a biomolecule such as a protein, antibody, or amino acid. Generally, fluorescent tagging, or labeling, uses a reactive derivative of a fluorescent molecule known as a fluorophore. The fluorophore selectively binds to a specific region or functional group on the target molecule and can be attached chemically or biologically. Various labeling techniques such as enzymatic labeling, protein labeling, and genetic labeling are widely utilized. Ethidium bromide, fluorescein and green fluorescent protein are common tags. The most commonly labelled molecules are antibodies, proteins, amino acids and peptides which are then used as specific probes for detection of a particular target.

Immunofluorescence(IF) is a light microscopy-based technique that allows detection and localization of a wide variety of target biomolecules within a cell or tissue at a quantitative level. The technique utilizes the binding specificity of antibodies and antigens. The specific region an antibody recognizes on an antigen is called an epitope. Several antibodies can recognize the same epitope but differ in their binding affinity. The antibody with the higher affinity for a specific epitope will surpass antibodies with a lower affinity for the same epitope.

Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET), fluorescence resonance energy transfer, resonance energy transfer (RET) or electronic energy transfer (EET) is a mechanism describing energy transfer between two light-sensitive molecules (chromophores). A donor chromophore, initially in its electronic excited state, may transfer energy to an acceptor chromophore through nonradiative dipole–dipole coupling. The efficiency of this energy transfer is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance between donor and acceptor, making FRET extremely sensitive to small changes in distance.

A fluorescence microscope is an optical microscope that uses fluorescence instead of, or in addition to, scattering, reflection, and attenuation or absorption, to study the properties of organic or inorganic substances. "Fluorescence microscope" refers to any microscope that uses fluorescence to generate an image, whether it is a simple set up like an epifluorescence microscope or a more complicated design such as a confocal microscope, which uses optical sectioning to get better resolution of the fluorescence image.

Fluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopy or FLIM is an imaging technique based on the differences in the exponential decay rate of the photon emission of a fluorophore from a sample. It can be used as an imaging technique in confocal microscopy, two-photon excitation microscopy, and multiphoton tomography.

Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS) is a statistical analysis, via time correlation, of stationary fluctuations of the fluorescence intensity. Its theoretical underpinning originated from L. Onsager's regression hypothesis. The analysis provides kinetic parameters of the physical processes underlying the fluctuations. One of the interesting applications of this is an analysis of the concentration fluctuations of fluorescent particles (molecules) in solution. In this application, the fluorescence emitted from a very tiny space in solution containing a small number of fluorescent particles (molecules) is observed. The fluorescence intensity is fluctuating due to Brownian motion of the particles. In other words, the number of the particles in the sub-space defined by the optical system is randomly changing around the average number. The analysis gives the average number of fluorescent particles and average diffusion time, when the particle is passing through the space. Eventually, both the concentration and size of the particle (molecule) are determined. Both parameters are important in biochemical research, biophysics, and chemistry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Photobleaching</span> Loss of colour by a pigment when illuminated

In optics, photobleaching is the photochemical alteration of a dye or a fluorophore molecule such that it is permanently unable to fluoresce. This is caused by cleaving of covalent bonds or non-specific reactions between the fluorophore and surrounding molecules. Such irreversible modifications in covalent bonds are caused by transition from a singlet state to the triplet state of the fluorophores. The number of excitation cycles to achieve full bleaching varies. In microscopy, photobleaching may complicate the observation of fluorescent molecules, since they will eventually be destroyed by the light exposure necessary to stimulate them into fluorescing. This is especially problematic in time-lapse microscopy.

Stimulated emission depletion (STED) microscopy is one of the techniques that make up super-resolution microscopy. It creates super-resolution images by the selective deactivation of fluorophores, minimizing the area of illumination at the focal point, and thus enhancing the achievable resolution for a given system. It was developed by Stefan W. Hell and Jan Wichmann in 1994, and was first experimentally demonstrated by Hell and Thomas Klar in 1999. Hell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2014 for its development. In 1986, V.A. Okhonin had patented the STED idea. This patent was unknown to Hell and Wichmann in 1994.

Fluorescence anisotropy or fluorescence polarization is the phenomenon where the light emitted by a fluorophore has unequal intensities along different axes of polarization. Early pioneers in the field include Aleksander Jablonski, Gregorio Weber, and Andreas Albrecht. The principles of fluorescence polarization and some applications of the method are presented in Lakowicz's book.

Fluorescence Loss in Photobleaching (FLIP) is a fluorescence microscopy technique used to examine movement of molecules inside cells and membranes. A cell membrane is typically labeled with a fluorescent dye to allow for observation. A specific area of this labeled section is then bleached several times using the beam of a confocal laser scanning microscope. After each imaging scan, bleaching occurs again. This occurs several times, to ensure that all accessible fluorophores are bleached since unbleached fluorophores are exchanged for bleached fluorophores, causing movement through the cell membrane. The amount of fluorescence from that region is then measured over a period of time to determine the results of the photobleaching on the cell as a whole.

Fluorescence cross-correlation spectroscopy (FCCS) is a spectroscopic technique that examines the interactions of fluorescent particles of different colours as they randomly diffuse through a microscopic detection volume over time, under steady conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz</span> American biologist

Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz is a Senior Group Leader at Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Janelia Research Campus and a founding member of the Neuronal Cell Biology Program at Janelia. Previously, she was the Chief of the Section on Organelle Biology in the Cell Biology and Metabolism Program, in the Division of Intramural Research in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health from 1993 to 2016. Lippincott-Schwartz received her PhD from Johns Hopkins University, and performed post-doctoral training with Richard Klausner at the NICHD, NIH in Bethesda, Maryland.

Super-resolution microscopy is a series of techniques in optical microscopy that allow such images to have resolutions higher than those imposed by the diffraction limit, which is due to the diffraction of light. Super-resolution imaging techniques rely on the near-field or on the far-field. Among techniques that rely on the latter are those that improve the resolution only modestly beyond the diffraction-limit, such as confocal microscopy with closed pinhole or aided by computational methods such as deconvolution or detector-based pixel reassignment, the 4Pi microscope, and structured-illumination microscopy technologies such as SIM and SMI.

Fluorescent chloride sensors are used for chemical analysis. The discoveries of chloride (Cl⁻) participations in physiological processes stimulates the measurements of intracellular Cl⁻ in live cells and the development of fluorescent tools referred below.

Photo-activated localization microscopy and stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (STORM) are widefield fluorescence microscopy imaging methods that allow obtaining images with a resolution beyond the diffraction limit. The methods were proposed in 2006 in the wake of a general emergence of optical super-resolution microscopy methods, and were featured as Methods of the Year for 2008 by the Nature Methods journal. The development of PALM as a targeted biophysical imaging method was largely prompted by the discovery of new species and the engineering of mutants of fluorescent proteins displaying a controllable photochromism, such as photo-activatible GFP. However, the concomitant development of STORM, sharing the same fundamental principle, originally made use of paired cyanine dyes. One molecule of the pair, when excited near its absorption maximum, serves to reactivate the other molecule to the fluorescent state.

Calcium imaging is a microscopy technique to optically measure the calcium (Ca²⁺) status of an isolated cell, tissue or medium. Calcium imaging takes advantage of calcium indicators, fluorescent molecules that respond to the binding of Ca²⁺ ions by fluorescence properties. Two main classes of calcium indicators exist: chemical indicators and genetically encoded calcium indicators (GECI). This technique has allowed studies of calcium signalling in a wide variety of cell types. In neurons, action potential generation is always accompanied by rapid influx of Ca²⁺ ions. Thus, calcium imaging can be used to monitor the electrical activity in hundreds of neurons in cell culture or in living animals, which has made it possible to observe the activity of neuronal circuits during ongoing behavior.

A FMN-binding fluorescent protein (FbFP), also known as a LOV-based fluorescent protein, is a small, oxygen-independent fluorescent protein that binds flavin mononucleotide (FMN) as a chromophore.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spinach aptamer</span>

The need for fluorescently tracking RNA rose as its roles in complex cellular functions has grown to not only include mRNA, rRNA, and tRNA, but also RNAi, siRNA, snoRNA, and lncRNA, among others. Spinach is a synthetically derived RNA aptamer born out of the need for a way of studying the role of RNAs at the cellular level. This aptamer was created using Systematic Evolution for Ligands by EXponential enrichment, or SELEX, which is also known as in vitro evolution.

Fluorescence imaging is a type of non-invasive imaging technique that can help visualize biological processes taking place in a living organism. Images can be produced from a variety of methods including: microscopy, imaging probes, and spectroscopy.

References

1 2 3 Axelrod, D; Koppel, D; Schlessinger, J; Elson, E; Webb, W (1976). "Mobility measurement by analysis of fluorescence photobleaching recovery kinetics". Biophysical Journal. 16 (9): 1055–69. Bibcode:1976BpJ....16.1055A. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(76)85755-4. PMC 1334945 . PMID 786399.
1 2 Sprague, Brian L.; Pego, Robert L.; Stavreva, Diana A.; McNally, James G. (2004). "Analysis of Binding Reactions by Fluorescence Recovery after Photobleaching". Biophysical Journal. 86 (6): 3473–95. Bibcode:2004BpJ....86.3473S. doi:10.1529/biophysj.103.026765. PMC 1304253 . PMID 15189848.
1 2 3 Kou Qin; Chunmin Dong; Guangyu Wu; Nevin A Lambert (August 2011). "Inactive-state preassembly of Gq-coupled receptors and Gq heterotrimers". Nature Chemical Biology. 7 (11): 740–747. doi:10.1038/nchembio.642. PMC 3177959 . PMID 21873996.
↑ Day, CA; Kraft, LJ; Kang, M; Kenworthy, AK (2012). "Analysis of protein and lipid dynamics using confocal fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP)". Current Protocols in Cytometry. Chapter 2: 2–19. doi:10.1002/0471142956.cy0219s62. PMC 3538152 . PMID 23042527.
↑ Mazza, D; Mueller, F; Stasevich, TJ; McNally, JG (2013). "Convergence of chromatin binding estimates in live cells". Nat Methods. 10 (8): 691–2. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2573. PMID 23900248. S2CID 27896929.
↑ Kou Qin; Pooja R. Sethi; Nevin A. Lambert (August 2008). "Abundance and stability of complexes containing inactive G protein-coupled receptors and G proteins". The FASEB Journal. 22 (8): 2920–2927. doi: 10.1096/fj.08-105775 . PMC 2493464 . PMID 18434433.
↑ Kraft, LJ; Kenworthy, AK (2012). "Imaging protein complex formation in the autophagy pathway: analysis of the interaction of LC3 and Atg4B(C74A) in live cells using Förster resonance energy transfer and fluorescence recovery after photobleaching". J Biomed Opt. 17 (1): 011008–011008–13. Bibcode:2012JBO....17a1008K. doi:10.1117/1.JBO.17.1.011008. PMC 3380812 . PMID 22352642.
↑ Tripathi, K; Parnaik, VK (2008). "Differential dynamics of splicing factor SC35 during the cell cycle". Journal of Biosciences. 33 (3): 345–54. doi:10.1007/s12038-008-0054-3. PMID 19005234. S2CID 6332495.
↑ Govindaraj, K; Hendriks, J; Lidke, DS; Karperien, M; Post, JN (January 2019). "Changes in Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP) as an indicator of SOX9 transcription factor activity". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms. 1862 (1): 107–117. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2018.11.001 . PMID 30465885.
↑ Houtsmuller, AB (2005). "Fluorescence recovery after photobleaching: Application to nuclear proteins". Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology. 95: 177–99. doi:10.1007/b102214. ISBN 978-3-540-23698-6. PMID 16080269.
↑ Soumpasis, D (1983). "Theoretical analysis of fluorescence photobleaching recovery experiments". Biophysical Journal. 41 (1): 95–7. Bibcode:1983BpJ....41...95S. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(83)84410-5. PMC 1329018 . PMID 6824758.
↑ Yang, J.; Köhler, K.; Davis, D. M.; Burroughs, N. J. (2009). "An improved strip FRAP method for estimating diffusion coefficients: Correcting for the degree of photobleaching". Journal of Microscopy. 238 (3): 240–53. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2818.2009.03347.x. PMID 20579262. S2CID 21797777.
↑ Castle, Brian T.; Howard, Stephen A.; Odde, David J. (2011). "Assessment of Transport Mechanisms Underlying the Bicoid Morphogen Gradient". Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering. 4 (1): 116–121. doi:10.1007/s12195-010-0157-4. PMC 3164504 . PMID 21892361.
1 2 González-Pérez, Vinicio; Schmierer, Bernhard; Hill, Caroline S.; Sear, Richard P. (2011). "Studying Smad2 intranuclear diffusion dynamics by mathematical modelling of FRAP experiments". Integrative Biology. 3 (3): 197–207. doi:10.1039/c0ib00098a. PMID 21240396.
1 2 Bulinski, JC; Odde, DJ; Howell, BJ; Salmon, TD; Waterman-Storer, CM (2001). "Rapid dynamics of the microtubule binding of ensconsin in vivo". Journal of Cell Science. 114 (Pt 21): 3885–97. doi:10.1242/jcs.114.21.3885. PMID 11719555.
↑ Sadegh Zadeh, Kouroush; Montas, Hubert J; Shirmohammadi, Adel (2006). "Identification of biomolecule mass transport and binding rate parameters in living cells by inverse modeling". Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling. 3: 36. doi: 10.1186/1742-4682-3-36 . PMC 1635038 . PMID 17034642.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[Axelrod-1] 1 2 3 Axelrod, D; Koppel, D; Schlessinger, J; Elson, E; Webb, W (1976). "Mobility measurement by analysis of fluorescence photobleaching recovery kinetics". Biophysical Journal. 16 (9): 1055–69. Bibcode:1976BpJ....16.1055A. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(76)85755-4. PMC 1334945 . PMID 786399.

[sprague1-2] 1 2 Sprague, Brian L.; Pego, Robert L.; Stavreva, Diana A.; McNally, James G. (2004). "Analysis of Binding Reactions by Fluorescence Recovery after Photobleaching". Biophysical Journal. 86 (6): 3473–95. Bibcode:2004BpJ....86.3473S. doi:10.1529/biophysj.103.026765. PMC 1304253 . PMID 15189848.

[Kou_Qin-3] 1 2 3 Kou Qin; Chunmin Dong; Guangyu Wu; Nevin A Lambert (August 2011). "Inactive-state preassembly of Gq-coupled receptors and Gq heterotrimers". Nature Chemical Biology. 7 (11): 740–747. doi:10.1038/nchembio.642. PMC 3177959 . PMID 21873996.

[4] Day, CA; Kraft, LJ; Kang, M; Kenworthy, AK (2012). "Analysis of protein and lipid dynamics using confocal fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP)". Current Protocols in Cytometry. Chapter 2: 2–19. doi:10.1002/0471142956.cy0219s62. PMC 3538152 . PMID 23042527.

[5] Mazza, D; Mueller, F; Stasevich, TJ; McNally, JG (2013). "Convergence of chromatin binding estimates in live cells". Nat Methods. 10 (8): 691–2. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2573. PMID 23900248. S2CID 27896929.

[pmid=18434433-6] Kou Qin; Pooja R. Sethi; Nevin A. Lambert (August 2008). "Abundance and stability of complexes containing inactive G protein-coupled receptors and G proteins". The FASEB Journal. 22 (8): 2920–2927. doi: 10.1096/fj.08-105775 . PMC 2493464 . PMID 18434433.

[7] Kraft, LJ; Kenworthy, AK (2012). "Imaging protein complex formation in the autophagy pathway: analysis of the interaction of LC3 and Atg4B(C74A) in live cells using Förster resonance energy transfer and fluorescence recovery after photobleaching". J Biomed Opt. 17 (1): 011008–011008–13. Bibcode:2012JBO....17a1008K. doi:10.1117/1.JBO.17.1.011008. PMC 3380812 . PMID 22352642.

[8] Tripathi, K; Parnaik, VK (2008). "Differential dynamics of splicing factor SC35 during the cell cycle". Journal of Biosciences. 33 (3): 345–54. doi:10.1007/s12038-008-0054-3. PMID 19005234. S2CID 6332495.

[9] Govindaraj, K; Hendriks, J; Lidke, DS; Karperien, M; Post, JN (January 2019). "Changes in Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP) as an indicator of SOX9 transcription factor activity". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms. 1862 (1): 107–117. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2018.11.001 . PMID 30465885.

[10] Houtsmuller, AB (2005). "Fluorescence recovery after photobleaching: Application to nuclear proteins". Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology. 95: 177–99. doi:10.1007/b102214. ISBN 978-3-540-23698-6. PMID 16080269.

[11] Soumpasis, D (1983). "Theoretical analysis of fluorescence photobleaching recovery experiments". Biophysical Journal. 41 (1): 95–7. Bibcode:1983BpJ....41...95S. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(83)84410-5. PMC 1329018 . PMID 6824758.

[yang10-12] Yang, J.; Köhler, K.; Davis, D. M.; Burroughs, N. J. (2009). "An improved strip FRAP method for estimating diffusion coefficients: Correcting for the degree of photobleaching". Journal of Microscopy. 238 (3): 240–53. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2818.2009.03347.x. PMID 20579262. S2CID 21797777.

[castle11-13] Castle, Brian T.; Howard, Stephen A.; Odde, David J. (2011). "Assessment of Transport Mechanisms Underlying the Bicoid Morphogen Gradient". Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering. 4 (1): 116–121. doi:10.1007/s12195-010-0157-4. PMC 3164504 . PMID 21892361.

[gonzalez11-14] 1 2 González-Pérez, Vinicio; Schmierer, Bernhard; Hill, Caroline S.; Sear, Richard P. (2011). "Studying Smad2 intranuclear diffusion dynamics by mathematical modelling of FRAP experiments". Integrative Biology. 3 (3): 197–207. doi:10.1039/c0ib00098a. PMID 21240396.

[bulinski01-15] 1 2 Bulinski, JC; Odde, DJ; Howell, BJ; Salmon, TD; Waterman-Storer, CM (2001). "Rapid dynamics of the microtubule binding of ensconsin in vivo". Journal of Cell Science. 114 (Pt 21): 3885–97. doi:10.1242/jcs.114.21.3885. PMID 11719555.

[zadeh06-16] Sadegh Zadeh, Kouroush; Montas, Hubert J; Shirmohammadi, Adel (2006). "Identification of biomolecule mass transport and binding rate parameters in living cells by inverse modeling". Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling. 3: 36. doi: 10.1186/1742-4682-3-36 . PMC 1635038 . PMID 17034642.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]