Nature Methods 2, 905 - 909 (2005)
Published online: 18 November 2005; | doi:10.1038/nmeth819
A guide to choosing fluorescent proteinsNathan C Shaner1, 2, Paul A Steinbach1, 3
& Roger Y Tsien1, 3, 41
Department of Pharmacology, 310 Cellular & Molecular Medicine West 0647, University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. 2
Biomedical Sciences Graduate Program, 310 Cellular & Molecular Medicine West 0647, University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. 3
Howard Hughes Medical Institute and 310 Cellular & Molecular Medicine West 0647, University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. 4
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, 310 Cellular & Molecular Medicine West 0647, University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
Correspondence should be addressed to Roger Y Tsien rtsien@ucsd.edu The recent explosion in the diversity of available fluorescent proteins (FPs)1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16 promises a wide variety of new tools for biological imaging. With no unified standard for assessing these tools, however, a researcher is faced with difficult questions. Which FPs are best for general use? Which are the brightest? What additional factors determine which are best for a given experiment? Although in many cases, a trial-and-error approach may still be necessary in determining the answers to these questions, a unified characterization of the best available FPs provides a useful guide in narrowing down the options.
MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated.
|
