 |
Page
designed and maintained by Octavian Henegariu (Email:
or ).
|
WARNING:
The information provided in these pages is copyrighted and is intended
for individual use only. No parts of this work (text, tables or pictures)
may be commercialized, published or otherwise reproduced without the
written consent of the author.
Ref: Nature Biotechnology 2000, Vol 18, p345-348. Get
article in PDF format here |
PCR
| dUTP
label |
FISH |
FISH
guide| CCK
| Slide
prep |
CM-FISH
| TM-FISH
| mArrays
| Home
3.
Application: M-FISH labeling schemes
3.1
Custom-made vs. commercial-made nucleotides
Commercial nucleotides
(Fig.10, m1-k1) and custom-prepared nucleotides (Fig. 10, m2-k2) were
used for side-by-side M-FISH comparisons. Hybridization results show comparable
M-FISH analyses. Same amounts/volumes of FITC, BIO and Cy5 labeled probes
were used. The amount of labeled probe was increased by 30% for DIG (to
compensate for phenol extraction losses) and 60% for Cy3 (to compensate
for a less optimal batch of dye). The shorter exposure times for the M-FISH
with commercial nucleotides, indicated that purified nucleotides labeled
the DNA better. This was expected, considering that the same volume of
any nucleotide contained 100% labeled dUTP for the commercial source but
only 50-60% for the custom-made ones. Because of this, to achieve similar
labeling efficiency, 2/3 of dTTP in a reaction needs to be replaced by
custom-modified nucleotides (compared to 1/3 for commercial nucleotides).

Fig.
10.m1-k1
and m2-k2. Comparison of metaphases and karyotypes of M-FISH
analyses with commercial labeled nucleotides (m1-k1) and
custom-synthesized labeled nucleotides (m2-k2). Amount of
each probe used is shown in Table 2. The commercial nucleotides were:
biotin-11/16-dUTP (Enzo Diagnostics or Boehringer Mannheim), FITC-12-dUTP,
digoxigenin-11-dUTP (Boehringer Mannheim), Cy3-dUTP and Cy5-dUTP (Amersham-Pharmacia).
The custom-made dUTP were conjugated to the same dyes/haptenes. BIO was
detected with Avidin-Cy3.5 and DIG with Cy5.5. Both approaches yielded
analyzable results. Exposure times were shorter for the M-FISH with commercial
nucleotides, but S/N values were comparable (Table 2).
3.2. Fluorescent
nucleotides vs. haptene nucleotides
M-FISH analysis using
only fluorescent-labeled nucleotides (DEAC, FITC, R6G, TxR, Cy5) was compared
with M-FISH using only haptene-labeled nucleotides (DIG, BIO, DNP, TAMRA
and FITC Ý here the fluorophores were used as haptenes and were detected
with specific antibodies). Fluorescence filters appropriate for the use
of all dyes were commercially obtained (Chroma Technologies, Table 3).
When compared with the M-FISH using fluorescent labeled nucleotides only,
results show that the use of haptenes increases the brightness of the
signal (2-3 times reduced exposures) but decreases the signal to noise
ratio (S/N, Table 2). The quality of labeling of any one chromosome depends
on the quality of the painting probe itself, the amount of labeled probe
used, the efficiency of the labeling reaction, the dye/haptene used and
the overall amount of DNA in the same hybridization. For example, when
twice as much volumes of each labeled library were used ("m1" vs. "m5",
Table 2), results showed increased signal quality for the fluorescent-labeled
libraries (FITC, Cy3, Cy5) but unchanged (BIO/Cy3.5) or decreased signal
quality (DIG/Cy5.5) for the haptene-labeled libraries (also between m3
and m4). The decrease in S/N for the haptene-labeled probes may by due
to the increased background hybridization of the probe, detectable by
the labeled-antibody. At the same time, brightness of haptene-labeled
probes is higher, with exposures up to 5 times shorter. The use of antibodies
("m4-k4", Fig.11) also decreases the smoothness of the hybridization signal,
which appears more "dotty" overall. Choosing the appropriate fluors and
haptenes for FISH should depend on the sensitivity of imaging equipment,
probe size (single copy or paint probes) and the cost of each dye or haptene.
In our hands, the most convenient nucleotide combinations for M-FISH uses
DEAC, FITC, R6G, TxR, and BIO (detected with Avidin-Cy5). In M-FISH, imaging
time of any channel/dye needs to be between 1/3 and 3x of the value for
the two adjacent channels. If the FISH signal in any one channel is weak,
thus requiring 5x-10x longer exposure times compared to an immediately
adjacent channel, there is the possibility of signal "leaking" from the
bright channel into the weak channel, thus interfering with the analysis
accuracy and S/N quality.

Fig
11. m3-k3
show results of M-FISH using custom-synthesized, fluorescent-labeled nucleotides
only. The fluorophores used were: DEAC, FITC, R6G, TxR and Cy5 (Table
2). Results indicate that coumarine and rhodamine derivatives can be successfully
used to replace the more expensive cyanine dyes. Cy5-dUTP labeled libraries
can be labeled with BIO-dUTP and detected with Avidin-Cy5, a cheaper and
more robust alternative (not shown). m4-k4 show results
of M-FISH using dUTP custom-labeled with five different "haptenes".
The detection scheme included: avidin-AMCA (BIO detection); mouse-antiDIG
and horse antimouse Cy5.5 (DIG detection); rat antiDNP and donkey antirat
Cy5 (DNP detection); goat antiFITC and donkey antigoat FITC (FITC detection);
rabbit antirhodamine and donkey antirabbit Cy3 (rhodamine detection).
All antibodies were stored as 1 mg/ml stock solutions and were used at
1:100 dilutions in 4xSSC, 5-10 minutes at 37 C.
| Table
2. Signal-to-noise ratios (S/N), exposure times and their relationship
with the amount of labeled probe. |
Table
3. Filters for microscopy (Chroma Technologies) and corresponding
dyes.
|
|
Dye/haptene
|
Chromosomes
(S/N ratios)
|
Vol
|
Exp
(sec)
|
|
1
|
7
|
9
|
17
|
22
|
|
FITC-m1
|
3.2
|
5.9
|
2.8
|
3.8
|
2.3
|
133
|
0.4
|
|
FITC-m2
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
2.0
|
3.7
|
1.9
|
133
|
1.0
|
|
FITC-m3
|
2.8
|
4.5
|
1.8
|
3.1
|
1.4
|
100
|
0.6
|
|
FITC/FITC-m4
|
2.3
|
3.9
|
1.9
|
2.9
|
1.4
|
100
|
0.2
|
|
FITC-m5
|
2.0
|
2.6
|
1.4
|
2.7
|
1.4
|
60
|
3.0
|
|
3
|
7
|
9
|
5
|
12
|
|
|
|
Cy3-m1
|
4.8
|
4.3
|
2.6
|
1.9
|
3.5
|
166
|
0.3
|
|
Cy3-m2
|
3.9
|
3.7
|
2.2
|
2.3
|
3.7
|
266
|
2.5
|
|
R6G-m3
|
6.7
|
4.1
|
2.7
|
2.7
|
3.9
|
100
|
0.4
|
|
Rhod/Cy3-m4
|
4.9
|
2.8
|
2.4
|
2.6
|
3.5
|
100
|
0.07
|
|
Cy3-m5
|
2.3
|
3.9
|
1.8
|
1.9
|
3.2
|
100
|
3.0
|
|
4
|
7
|
18
|
11
|
12
|
|
|
|
BIO/Cy3.5-m1
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
1.6
|
2
|
2.2
|
133
|
0.1
|
|
BIO/Cy3.5-m2
|
2.3
|
2.3
|
2.1
|
1.9
|
2.4
|
133
|
0.1
|
|
TxR-m3
|
3.1
|
1.4
|
2.3
|
2.1
|
2.3
|
100
|
0.4
|
|
BIO/AMCA-m4
|
2.2
|
1.9
|
1.5
|
1.8
|
2.6
|
100
|
0.4
|
|
BIO/Cy3.5-m5
|
2.5
|
2.8
|
1.7
|
1.8
|
2.6
|
50
|
0.35
|
|
10
|
8
|
9
|
11
|
22
|
|
|
|
Cy5-m1
|
2.3
|
3.0
|
2.3
|
3.0
|
1.8
|
250
|
0.6
|
|
Cy5-m2
|
2.2
|
3.8
|
1.8
|
2.8
|
1.6
|
250
|
1.2
|
|
Cy5-m3
|
1.8
|
2.9
|
2.1
|
3.1
|
1.6
|
200
|
1.6
|
|
DNP/Cy5-m4
|
1.3
|
2.3
|
2.4
|
1.6
|
1.1
|
100
|
1.2
|
|
Cy5-m5
|
1.6
|
3.5
|
1.6
|
1.9
|
1.5
|
100
|
3.5
|
|
2
|
8
|
18
|
17
|
12
|
|
|
|
DIG/Cy5.5-m1
|
1.5
|
2.2
|
1.5
|
2.7
|
2.3
|
100
|
2.5
|
|
DIG/Cy5.5-m2
|
3.5
|
2.9
|
2.1
|
3.2
|
2.7
|
133
|
5.0
|
|
DEAC-m3
|
2.5
|
1.9
|
2.0
|
3.6
|
3.4
|
100
|
0.5
|
|
DIG/Cy5.5-m4
|
2.5
|
2.3
|
1.8
|
3.5
|
3.8
|
100
|
3.0
|
|
DIG/Cy5.5-m5
|
4.1
|
3.6
|
2.6
|
3.9
|
3.4
|
50
|
5.0
|
Table
2 legend.
Bold numbers indicate the chromosomes for which S/N were calculated
(using Adobe Photoshop). Chromosomes were chosen so as to include
both strongly (such as 7, 8, 12, 17) and weakly labeled (such as
5, 10, 18, 22) chromosomes. "Exp" is the exposure time
in seconds. "m1" through "m5" are the metaphase(s)
analyzed. m1, m2, m3 and m4 correspond to the metaphases and karyotypes
shown in Fig 10 and Fig 11. For comparison purposes, all chromosomes
were labeled with commercial nucleotides in m1 and m5 and custom
nucleotides in m2. Only custom-made fluorescent- or hapten-nucleotides
were used for m3 and m4, respectively. m5 is not shown in the figures.
|
|
No
|
Filter
name
|
Dye
|
|
Name
|
Absorption
(nm)
|
Emission
(NM)
|
|
1
|
Narrow
band DAPI (31013)
|
DAPI
|
350
|
456
|
|
AMCA
|
353
|
442
|
|
C Blue
|
396
|
410
|
|
2
|
Aqua-v2
(31036v2)
|
DEAC
|
432
|
472
|
|
3
|
MF101/Spectrum
Green
|
FITC
|
491
|
515
|
|
Alexa488
|
493
|
517
|
|
OG
|
495
|
521
|
|
4
|
MF102/Spectrum
Orange
|
Cy3
|
550
|
570
|
|
R6G
|
524
|
552
|
|
TAMRA*
|
547
|
573
|
|
5
|
Cy3.5
|
TAMRA*
|
547
|
573
|
|
Cy3.5
|
581
|
596
|
|
Texas
Red
|
583
|
603
|
|
6
|
Cy5
|
Cy5
|
649
|
670
|
|
7
|
Cy5.5
|
Cy5.5
|
675
|
694
|
|
8
|
Cy7
|
Cy7
|
743
|
767
|
Table
3 legend. Numbers
1-8 correspond to the eight currently available filters for
separating fluorescent dyes from blue to infrared. Colors
in the first table column are aimed at indicating the approximate
fluorescent color of the dyes visible through the respective filter.
However, Cy5, Cy5.5 and Cy7 fluoresce in infrared (invisible),
so their colors are arbitrarily chosen. (1). Custom-made
Cascade Blue-dUTP or AMCA-dUTP yielded no FISH signals. With these
blue dyes, simultaneous DAPI counterstaining is not possible.(2).
DEAC yielded M-FISH signals with a good S/N, easily separable from
DAPI or FITC. (3). In our hands, custom-made OG-, Alexa488-
and commercial Alexa488-dUTP yielded lower quality hybridization
signals when compared with FITC. (4). R6G showed the highest
S/N from all nucleotides tested and is cheaper than Cy3. *TAMRA
has the disadvantage that it is detectable through both the MF102
and the Cy3.5 filters.(5). Cy3.5- (and Cy5.5-) dUTP are not
incorporated by polymerases (charged molecules ?) but both dyes
can be used when conjugated to antibodies. Texas Red yields a good
S/N and is much cheaper than its cyanine equivalent. (6-8).
All three cyanine derivatives can be used conjugated dyes to antibodies.
Cy5 and Cy7 can also be incorporated in enzymatic reactions as dUTP
derivatives (we did not test Cy7). No good replacements for these
far-red or infrared dyes are currently available.
|
|