Robustness Evaluation of Quantitative Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer Imaging Methods in Live Cells
Yin Ao,Zhai Shixian,Sun Han,Liu Zhi,Zhuang Zhengfei,Chen Tongsheng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3788/cjl202148.2107001
2021-01-01
Chinese Journal of Lasers
Abstract:Objective Acceptor-sensitized 3-cube fluorescence resonance energy transfer ( FRET) imaging ( also termed E-FRET imaging) is a popular FRET quantification method in living cells that uses fluorescence intensity. We recently developed a measurement of calibration factors ( termed as mTA-G method) that eliminates the influence of the emission transmission characteristics of the instrument used on quantitative E-FRET measurement, significantly increasing the success rate and accuracy of quantitative E-FRET measurement in living cells. Because of its inherent ability to resolve the excitation-emission spectra of donor and acceptor, as well as donor-acceptor sensitization, spectral unmixing of simultaneous excitation and emission spectra ( mExEm-spFRET) has been used for quantitative FRET measurement without the need for additional reference for correcting the excitation crosstalk. We evaluated the two methods' robustness by implementing them on a self-assembled quantitative FRET measurement system with cells expressing different constructs. Methods The research methods of this paper are mainly divided into four sections: Cell culture and plasmids transfection, predetermining spectral crosstalk and spectral fingerprints, measuring calibration factors and system parameters, superior robustness of mExEm-spFRET to E-FRET method. First, MCF-7 cells were cultured in 6-well plates. For transfection, cells were separately transfected with four different FRET plasmids using transfection reagent. Then, living MCF-7 cells separately expressing YFP ( Y) and CFP ( C) were used to predetermine the spectral crosstalk coefficients ( a, b, c and d) and spectral fingerprints ( S-D, S-A , and S-s) were shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Next, calibration factors ( G and gamma) were measured using cells expressing C4Y, C10Y, C40Y, and C80Y ( Fig. 3) . The cells expressing C4Y were used to measure system parameters ( f(SC), and r(K)) ( Fig. 4) . Finally, to evaluate the robustness of mExEm-spFRET and E-FRET methods, we performed quantitative mExEm-spFRET and E-FRET measurements respectively for the same cells separately expressing four kinds of plasmids under different signal-to-noise ratios ( R-SN) on different days (Fig. 5 and Table 3). Results and Discussion The E and R-c values of different FRET plasmid in the cells in Fig. 3 measured by mExEm-spFRET and E-FRET method were shown in Table 1, respectively. For cells 1 and 2, the E and R-c values measured by both methods were consistent with the reported E values and the expected R-c values. Still, the E values measured by E-FRET were generally larger than those calculated by the mExEm-spFRET method. These results indicate that both methods are applicable for live-cell FRET measurement. Table 2 shows different constructs' statistical E and R-c values in living MCF-7 cells under different R-SN. For the cells under R-SN >3, the two methods obtained consistent FRET efficiency ( E) values, but E-FRET obtained smaller donor/acceptor concentration ratio (R-c) values than the expected for individual constructs; for the cells under R-SN <3, the two methods obtained consistent R-c values, but the deviation of individual plasmid E values obtained by E-FRET was slightly larger. These results further demonstrate E-FRET has slightly less robustness than the mExEm-spFRET method, especially for the cells under a low R-SN. We repeated the above measurements on our system on March 10th and obtained consistent results with FRET results measured on December 12 by mExEm-spFRET ( Table 3 ) . But the R-c values of C80Y obtained by E-FRET were inconsistent with expected values. These results show the superior robustness of mExEms-pFRET to E-FRET method especially for the cells with low E (E<0. 14) . Because the fluorescence expression of YFP is very unstable and easily disturbed by the background ( BG) signal, particularly for the cells with low R-SN, resulting in the inaccurate results measured by the E-FRET method. Because of the excellent robustness of mExEm-spFRET, just as described above, the mExEm-spFRET method still obtained accurate results for the C80Y construct in the cells with a low R-SN. Conclusions In this report, we evaluated the robustness of both E-FRET and mExEm-spFRET methods by implementing E-FRET and mExEm-spFRET measurements, respectively, with two excitation wavelengths using the same cells expressing different constructs under different R-SN. For the cells under R-SN > 3, the two methods obtained consistent FRET efficiency ( E) values, but E-FRET obtained smaller R-c values than the expected for individual constructs; for the cells under R-SN <3 , the two methods obtained consistent R-c values, but the deviation of individual plasmid E values obtained by E-FRET was slightly larger. E-FRET and mExEm-spFRET methods are very applicable for live-cell FRET measurement and the superior robustness of mExEm-spFRET to E-FRET method, especially for the cells with low R-SN and E (R-SN <3, E<0.14).