Published on Web 07/27/2010
Fluorogenic Dendrons with Multiple Donor Chromophores as
Bright Genetically Targeted and Activated Probes
Christopher Szent-Gyorgyi,† Brigitte F. Schmidt,† James A. J. Fitzpatrick,†,§ and
Marcel P. Bruchez*,†,‡
Carnegie Mellon UniVersity, Molecular Biosensors and Imaging Center, Department of
Chemistry, 4400 Fifth AVenue, Pittsburgh, PennsylVania 15213
Received May 12, 2009; E-mail: bruchez @cmu.edu
Abstract: We have developed a class of dendron-based fluorogenic dyes (termed dyedrons) comprised of
multiple cyanine (Cy3) donors coupled to a single malachite green (MG) acceptor that fluoresce only when the
MG is noncovalently but specifically bound to a cognate single chain antibody (scFv). These cell-impermeant
dyedrons exploit efficient intramolecular energy transfer from Cy3 donors to stoichiometrically amplify the
fluorescence of MG chromophores that are activated by binding to the scFv. These chromophore enhancements,
coupled with our optimized scFv, can significantly increase fluorescence emission generated by the dyedron/
scFv complex to brightness levels several-fold greater than that for single fluorescent proteins and targeted
small molecule fluorophores. Efficient intramolecular quenching of free dyedrons enables sensitive homogeneous
(no wash) detection under typical tissue culture conditions, with undetectable nonspecific activation.
multiple small molecule fluorophores.10 These probes are often
cumbersome to prepare and, when applied to live or fixed cells
Introduction
Fluorescent detection with genetically targeted probes has
fundamentally expanded the types of questions that can be
addressed with biological microscopy and cytometry.1 The ease
of use and breadth of application of genetically expressed fluo-
rescent protein chimeras has been truly revolutionary, especially
for live-cell studies. However, the signal generated by a single
fluorescent protein or organic dye fluorophore is intrinsically limited
and typically falls well short of the requirements for robust single
molecule detection.2 Investigators often address this deficit of signal
by overexpressing receptors and other rare proteins genetically
fused to a single fluorescent protein; however, overexpression may
lead to imbalances in protein regulation, biosynthesis, or assembly.
An alternative signal amplification scheme is based on very large
genetic fusions incorporating multiple fluorescent protein copies,
but these may sterically interfere with biological function.3 Es-
sentially the same limitations apply to any of several site-specific
dye-targeting methods based on genetic fusions to peptide domains
that can be specifically modified by an in vivo enzymatic activity.4
Highly fluorescent probes may be obtained by in vitro
conjugation of antibodies and other proteins to quantum dots,5,6
phycobiliproteins,7,8 DNA multifluorophore assemblies,9 or
and tissues, generate nonspecific background fluorescence unless
excess probe is removed. Because these fully exogenous probes
are not genetically expressed by the biological system of interest,
they are difficult to deliver to extracellular and especially intra-
cellular targets in a way that allows real time monitoring and
imaging of dynamic biological functions.11
Recently we and others demonstrated the use of single-chain
variable fragment (scFv) antibodies to noncovalently constrain
chromophores of several nonrigid cyanine-family dyes, thereby
activating fluorescence hundreds- to thousands-fold.12-14 These
scFvs are examples of a broader but so far limited class of
fluorogen activating proteins (FAPs).15 FAPs that bind deriva-
tives of malachite green (MG) displayed the greatest fluorogenic
activation, up to 20 000-fold,13 primarily because of an ex-
tremely low background signal. The cell impermeant M (MG
diethyleneglycolamine, Chart 1) and cell-permeant MG-ester13
(8) Glazer, A. N.; Stryer, L. Biophys. J. 1983, 43, 383.
(9) Benvin, A. L.; Creeger, Y.; Fisher, G. W.; Ballou, B.; Waggoner, A. S.;
Armitage, B. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 2025.
(10) Berlier, J. E.; Rothe, A.; Buller, G.; Bradford, J.; Gray, D. R.; Filanoski,
B. J.; Telford, W. G.; Yue, S.; Liu, J.; Cheung, C. Y. J. Histochem.
Cytochem. 2003, 51, 1699.
† Molecular Biosensors and Imaging Center.
(11) Michalet, X.; Pinaud, F. F.; Bentolila, L. A.; Tsay, J. M.; Doose, S.;
Li, J. J.; Sundaresan, G.; Wu, A. M.; Gambhir, S. S.; Weiss, S. Science
(Washington, D.C.) 2005, 307, 538.
‡ Department of Chemistry.
§ Current address: Waitt Advanced Biophotonics Center, Salk Institute
for Biological Studies, 10010 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037.
(1) Giepmans, B. N. G.; Adams, S. R.; Ellisman, M. H.; Tsien, R. Y.
Science (Washington, D.C.) 2006, 312, 217.
¨
¨
(12) Ozhalici-Unal, H.; Pow, C. L.; Marks, S. A.; Jesper, L. D.; Silva,
G. L.; Shank, N. I.; Jones, E. W.; Burnette III, J. M.; Berget, P. B.;
Armitage, B. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 12620.
(2) McKinney, S. A.; Murphy, C. S.; Hazelwood, K. L.; Davidson, M. W.;
Looger, L. L. Nat. Methods 2009, 6, 131.
(13) Szent-Gyorgyi, C.; Schmidt, B. F.; Creeger, Y.; Fisher, G. W.; Zakel,
K. L.; Adler, S.; Fitzpatrick, J. A. J.; Woolford, C. A.; Yan, Q.; Vasilev,
K. V.; Berget, P. B.; Bruchez, M. P.; Jarvik, J. W.; Waggoner, A.
Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26, 235.
(3) Cai, D.; Verhey, K. J.; Meyho¨fer, E. Biophys. J. 2007, 92, 4137.
(4) Chen, I.; Howarth, M.; Lin, W.; Ting, A. Y. Nat. Methods 2005, 2,
99.
(14) Shank, N. I.; Zanotti, K. J.; Lanni, F.; Berget, P. B.; Armitage, B. A.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 12960.
(5) Bruchez Jr, M.; Moronne, M.; Gin, P.; Weiss, S.; Alivisatos, A. P.
Science (Washington, D.C.) 1998, 281, 2013.
(15) Simeonov, A.; Matsushita, M.; Juban, E. A.; Thompson, E. H. Z.;
Hoffman, T. Z.; Beuscher, A. E.; Taylor, M. J.; Wirsching, P.; Rettig,
W.; McCusker, J. K. Science (Washington, D.C.) 2000, 290, 307.
(6) Chan, W. C. W.; Nie, S. Science (Washington, D.C.) 1998, 281, 2016.
(7) Oi, V. T.; Glazer, A. N.; Stryer, L. J. Cell Biol. 1982, 93, 981.
9
10.1021/ja9099328 2010 American Chemical Society
J. AM. CHEM. SOC. 2010, 132, 11103–11109 11103