|
The links on this page lead to external web pages. I don't have any influence on these web pages.
{List of used fluorescent proteins}
Here you can find a very informative review about fluorescent proteins in general:
A guide to choosing fluorescent proteins (PubMed)
| Name |
Excitation |
Emission |
Color |
External Links |
| Cerulean |
433nm |
475nm |
|
PubMed1,
PubMed2 |
| eGFP |
484nm |
507nm |
|
PubMed1,
PubMed2 |
| Emerald (EmGFP) |
487nm |
509nm |
|
PubMed1,
PubMed2, PubMed3 |
| eYFP |
514nm |
527nm |
|
PubMed |
| Venus |
515nm |
528nm |
|
PubMed1,
PubMed2 |
| dsRed2 |
563nm |
582nm |
|
Clontech |
| dsRedExpress |
555nm |
584nm |
|
Clontech |
| tdTomato (tandem dimer) |
554nm |
581nm |
|
PubMed1,
PubMed2 |
| dTomato |
554nm |
581nm |
|
PubMed1,
PubMed2 |
| mCherry |
587nm |
610nm |
|
PubMed1,
PubMed2 |
Keep in mind that in Cytometry you may have suboptimal excitation of the fluorescent proteins by the fixed laser wavelengths of the machine. In microscopy it is easier to get adapted filter sets that could help to increase brightness. And Cerulean is not visible using DAPI filters in microscopy.
{Fluorescence resistance fusion proteins}
For all fusion proteins cloned so far, the spectral properties appear to be unchanged (excitation and emission wavelengths). But the fusion proteins are always less bright, maybe because of transcription/translation efficiencies or mRNA/protein stability. It has not been determined if the spectral properties of the fused proteins are really identical to the properties of the fluorescent proteins alone.
|
