Figure 1
From: Comparative study reveals better far-red fluorescent protein for whole body imaging
Comparison of far-red fluorescent proteins in whole-mouse imaging.
(a) Representative fluorescence images of nude mice injected into the gluteal muscle with HEK293FT cells transiently expressing Katushka, eqFP650, eqFP670, mNeptune, E2-Crimson or Katushka2S together with IRES-driven luciferase, captured with indicated excitation and emission filter combinations on IVIS Lumina II. Prior to injection, cells were normalized for transfection efficiency with luciferase activity. Excitation filters are of 35-nm bandwidth centered at the wavelength indicated and emission filters DsRed and Cy5.5 are 575–650 and 695–770 nm, respectively. Pseudocolor scale bar: radiant efficiency (photons/s)/(μW/cm2). Note that scale bars differ for images with different excitation and emission filters. (b) Fluorescence efficiency of grafted cells, represented as the signal-to-noise ratio (signal ROI/background ROI) at excitation and emission filter combinations as above. Means ± st.dev. are shown, n=15–20. ANOVA with Tukey-Kramer posthoc test was used to calculate p-values. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences compared to Katushka2S (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001), brace denotes similar p-values.
