C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
lysosome tracking assay was conducted. The results (Figure S10,
Supporting Information) revealed that 9 h after incubation the
images still showed the probe was lysosome-specific, with a
Pearson’s colocalization coefficient of 0.78. This result demonstrates
the potential for LT1 as a stable lysosome marker for two-photon
fluorescence microscopy. An endocytosis process is proposed
(Figure S8, Supporting Information) as a possible pathway of LT1
cellular uptake, consistent with the literature.11
In a next step, to get an initial sense of the lysosomal specificity
of LT1 in other cell lines, COS-7 (African green monkey kidney
fibroblast-like) cells were employed using the same method
described above for the HCT 116 cells. The colocalization images
(Figure S7, Supporting Information) and colocalization coefficient
data (Table S2, Supporting Information) indicated that LT1 can
also specifically label lysosomes of other cells and significantly
avoid staining other organelles such as the Golgi apparatus and
mitochondria, suggesting broad, general utility for this new probe.
To demonstrate the advantage of using probe LT1 as a lysosomal
marker for 2PFM imaging, two-photon fluorescence imaging of
HCT 116 cells was conducted. The HCT 116 cell images (Figure
3) indicate that the 1PFM and 2PFM images are similar, with higher
3D resolution and contrast realized by 2PFM, to the point of
visualizing individual lysosomes, a feature rarely observed with
other lysosomal probes.
far exceed those of commercial lysotracker probes, including higher
2PA cross section, high lysosomal selectivity, good fluorescence
quantum yield, and, importantly, high photostability, all resulting
in a superior figure of merit. 2PFM was used to demonstrate
lysosomal tracking with LT1, paving the way for future studies
with LT1 to detect aberrant lysosomal trafficking. This may
eventually lead to a new agent for studying lysosome-related
diseases such as Tay-Sachs disease, mucopolysaccharidosis III B,
and Niemann-Pick disease.12
Acknowledgment. This work was supported by the National
Institutes of Health (1 R15 EB008858-01), the National Science
Foundation (CHE-0832622 and CHE-0840431), the U.S. Civilian
Research and Development Foundation (UKB2-2923-KV-07),
and the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (grant
M/49-2008).
1
Supporting Information Available: Experimental details, H and
13C spectra, pH sensitivity measurements, photostability measurements,
2PA cross section determination, cytotoxicity assay, cell incubation
conditions, colocalization studies, in Vitro photostability, long-term
lysosome tracking, and 2PFM lysosomal imaging (Figures S1-S10,
Tables S1 and S2). This material is available free of charge via the
References
(1) Luzio, J. P.; Pryor, P. R.; Bright, N. A. Nat. ReV. 2007, 8, 622–632.
(2) Safig, P.; Klumperman, J. Nat. ReV. 2009, 10, 623–635.
(3) Fehrenbacher, N.; Ja¨a¨ttela¨, M. Cancer Res. 2005, 65, 2993–2995.
(4) Glunde, K.; Foss, C. A.; Takagi, T.; Wildes, F.; Bhujwalla, Z. Bioconjugate
Chem. 2005, 16, 843–851.
(5) Anderson, R. G. W.; Orci, L. J. Cell Biol. 1988, 106, 539–543.
(6) (a) Lemieux, B.; Percival, M. D.; Falgueyret, J. Anal. Biochem. 2004, 327,
247–251. (b) Griffiths, G.; Hoflack, B.; Simons, K.; Mellman, I.; Kornfeld,
S. Cell 1988, 52, 329–341.
(7) Morales, A. R.; Yanez, C. O.; Schafer-Hales, K. J.; Marcus, A. I.; Belfield,
K. D. Bioconjugate Chem. 2009, 20, 1992–2000.
(8) Liang, Y.; Xie, Y.-X.; Li, J.-H. J. Org. Chem. 2006, 71, 379–381.
(9) (a) Kim, M. K.; Lim, C. S.; Hong, J. T.; Han, J. H.; Jang, H. Y.; Kim,
H. M.; Cho, B. R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 364–367. (b) Gao, Y.;
Wu, J.; Li, Y.; Sun, P.; Zhou, H.; Yang, J.; Zhang, S.; Jin, B.; Tian, Y.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 5208–5213. (c) Picot, A.; D’Ale´o, A.;
Baldeck, P. L.; Grichine, A.; Duperray, A.; Andraud, C.; Maury, O. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 1532–1533.
(10) Malich, G.; Markovic, B.; Winder, C. Toxicology 1997, 124, 179–192.
(11) (a) Dunn, W. A., Jr. J. Cell Biol. 1990, 110, 1923–1933. (b) Helenius, A.;
Mellman, I.; Wall, D.; Hubbard, A. Trends Biochem. Sci. 1983, 8, 245–
250. (c) Lawrence, B. P.; Brown, W. J. J. Cell Sci. 1992, 102, 515–526.
(12) (a) Ohmi, K.; Kudo, L. C.; Ryazantsev, S.; Zhao, H.; Karsten, S. L.; Neufeld,
E. F. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106, 8332–8337. (b) Kirkegaard,
T.; Roth, A. G.; Petersen, N. H. T.; Mahalka, A. K.; Oslen, O. D.; Moilanen,
I.; Zylicz, A.; Knudsen, J.; Sandhoff, K.; Arenz, C.; Kinnunen, P. K. J.;
Nylandsted, J.; Ja¨a¨ttela¨, M. Nature 2010, 463, 549–554.
Figure 3. Images of HCT 116 cells incubated with fluorescence probe
LT1 (20 µM, 2 h), all taken with a 60× oil immersion objective: (a) DIC,
500 ms; (b) one-photon fluorescence image, 150 ms (filter cube Ex 377/
50, DM 409, Em 525/40); (c) 3D reconstruction from overlaid two-photon
fluorescence images (Ex, 700 nm; Em, long-pass filter, 690 nm), 5 µm grid;
and (d) two-photon fluorescence image (Ex, 700 nm; Em, short-pass filter,
690 nm).
ࠗ
w
A movie showing a 3D rotation of the image in panel c is available in
the HTML version.
In conclusion, we present a very effective hydrophilic fluorene
derivative, LT1, as a lysosomal marker for two-photon fluorescence
cell imaging. A figure of merit was introduced to allow comparison
between probes. The new probe has a number of properties that
JA1057423
9
J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 132, NO. 35, 2010 12239