![]()
|
|
||||||||
J Biol Chem, Vol. 275, Issue 3, 1625-1629, January 21, 2000
§,
,
From the Departments of Medicine and Physiology, Cardiovascular
Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, California
94143-0521 and
Program in Cell and Lung Biology, Hospital
for Sick Children, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8, Canada
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The diffusion of DNA in cytoplasm is thought to
be an important determinant of the efficacy of gene delivery and
antisense therapy. We have measured the translational diffusion of
fluorescein-labeled double-stranded DNA fragments (in base pairs (bp):
21, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 6000) after microinjection into
cytoplasm and nucleus of HeLa cells. Diffusion was measured by spot
photobleaching using a focused argon laser spot (488 nm). In aqueous
solutions, diffusion coefficients of the DNA fragments in water
(Dw) decreased from 53 × 10 The diffusional mobility of DNA fragments in cytoplasm is thought
to be an important determinant of the efficacy of DNA delivery in gene
therapy and antisense oligonucleotide therapy (1-3). Liposome-mediated
gene transfer involves endocytic uptake, release from endosomes,
dissociation of DNA from lipid, diffusion through cytoplasm, transport
across nuclear pores, and diffusion to nuclear target sites (4-7).
Although considerable attention has been given to the mechanisms of
cellular DNA internalization, nuclear uptake, and subsequent molecular
events, little is known about the diffusive properties of introduced
DNA fragments in cytoplasm and nucleus. It is not known whether the
diffusion of DNA fragments is hindered by binding and steric
interactions or how the size and physical structure of DNA affect its
diffusional properties.
Recent studies have provided information about the diffusional
mobilities of small and macromolecule-sized solutes in cytoplasm and
nucleus. Spot photobleaching measurements indicated that small solutes
diffuse freely and rapidly in cytoplasm and nucleus, with diffusion
coefficients only 3-4 times lower than that in water (8, 9). Analysis
of the individual factors slowing solute diffusion, including
fluid-phase viscosity, binding, and collisional interactions, indicated
that the principal barrier for diffusion of small solutes was
collisional interactions due to macromolecular crowding (8). The
"fluid-phase" viscosity of cytoplasm and nucleus, defined as the
viscosity sensed by a small probe that does not interact with cellular
components, was determined by time-resolved anisotropy (10) and ratio
imaging of a viscosity-sensitive fluorescent probe (11) to be only
1.2-1.4 times greater than the viscosity of water. The translational
diffusion of larger, macromolecule-sized solutes
(FITC1 -labeled dextrans and
Ficolls) in cytoplasm and nucleus was only 3-4-fold slower than in
water for solutes <500-750 kDa (12) but was markedly slowed for
larger solutes (11, 12). The diffusional mobilities of targeted green
fluorescent protein chimeras have been measured recently in the aqueous
phase of cytoplasm (13), mitochondria (14), and endoplasmic reticulum
(15). Although these studies provide a starting point to predict the
diffusional properties of DNA fragments, they do not account for the
unique charge and structure of DNA that may strongly affect its
interactions with cellular components and thus its diffusional mobility.
The purpose of this study was to measure the translational diffusion of
DNA in cytoplasm and nucleus. Diffusion of microinjected fluorescein-labeled oligonucleotides and larger DNA fragments was
measured by fluorescence recovery after photobleaching. It was found
that the diffusion of small DNA fragments in cytoplasm was mildly
impeded but became greatly hindered with increasing DNA size. The
diffusion of DNA fragments of all sizes was severely restricted in the
nucleus. These results have important implications regarding the
barriers to DNA transit through cells.
Labeled DNA Fragments--
The 3000- and 6000-bp double-stranded
DNA fragments were obtained by linearizing plasmids pBluescript SK and
pGl2 (Promega), respectively. The 1000-bp DNA was obtained by digesting
pBluescript with DraI and EcoRI, generating
fragments of 1200, 1000, and 700 bp. The 100-, 50-, and 2000-bp DNA
fragments were generated by PCR amplification using human cystic
fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) cDNA as a
template. The amplified DNAs corresponded to nucleotides 4357-4443,
300-800, and 200-2301, respectively, in the CFTR cDNA. The 250-bp
DNA fragment was generated by PCR using yeast ubiquitin cDNA as
template. DNAs were covalently labeled with fluorescein using the IT
nucleic acid labeling kit (PanVera Corp.) according to the
manufacturer's instructions. The labeled DNA fragments were purified
twice on Microspin columns and ethanol-precipitated. Fluorescein
labeling did not alter DNA conformation as assessed by restriction
enzyme and DNase I susceptibility (data not shown). The
fluorescein-labeled 21-mer (5'-GGTTATCTAGACTCGAGCTC-3')
phosphorothioate oligonucleotide was synthesized by Research Genetics
Inc., and the double-stranded 21-mer was obtained by annealing with its unlabeled complementary sequence. In some experiments, cells were microinjected with size-fractionated FITC dextrans (70, 580, and 2000 kDa) prepared as described previously (12).
Cell Culture and Microinjection--
HeLa cells (ATCC CCL-2,
passages 15-30) were cultured on 18-mm diameter round glass coverslips
in DME H-21 medium supplemented with 5% fetal calf serum, penicillin
(100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml). Cells were grown at
37 °C in 95% air, 5% CO2 and used 1-2 days after
plating at which time they were ~80% confluent. For microinjection,
fluorescein-labeled DNAs were dissolved in calcium-free
phosphate-buffered saline, and solutions were centrifuged (10,000 × g, 10 min) to remove particulate matter. Microinjection was performed using an Eppendorf 5170 micromanipulator and 5242 microinjector. Glass needles were drawn from thin-walled filament capillaries (FHC, Brunswick, ME) with a vertical needle puller (Kopf,
Tujunga, CA). Cells were microinjected with ~4 fl of solution at an
injection pressure of 120 kilopascals over 0.5 s. Measurements were made at 23 °C at 5-45 min after microinjection unless other specified.
Spot Photobleaching Measurements--
An apparatus described
previously (16) was modified to measure recovery curves over long
times. The output of an argon ion laser (488 nm, Innova 70-4, Coherent
Inc.) was modulated by a high contrast acousto-optic modulator
(Brimrose Inc.) and directed onto the stage of an inverted
epifluorescence microscope (Diaphot, Nikon). The excitation path also
contained a fast shutter (open/close times <2 ms), which was used to
switch the probe beam on and off (beam on ~25 ms out of every 1-10
s) during data acquisitions over long times. The beam was reflected by
a dichroic mirror (510 nm) onto the sample using an objective lens
(Nikon ×20 dry, numerical aperture 0.75; or Nikon ×60 oil, numerical
aperture 1.4). For most experiments, the laser beam power was set to
50-100 milliwatts (488 nm), and the attenuation ratio (the ratio of
bleach to probe beam intensity) was set to 5000-10,000 to give <30%
bleach. Sample fluorescence was filtered by serial barrier (Schott
glass OG 515) and interference (530 ± 15 nm) filters and detected
by a gated photomultiplier. Signals were amplified and digitized at 1 MHz using a 14-bit analog-to-digital converter. Beam modulation,
shutter state, photomultiplier gating, and data collection were
software controlled. Signals were sampled prior to the bleach
(generally 103 data points in 100 ms) and over three
different time intervals after the bleach: high resolution data (1-MHz
sampling rate) over 10-100 ms, low resolution data (generally
104 points) over 0.1-10 s, and long time data (generally
103 points averaged over 25 ms while shutter open, followed
by specified delay).
For measurements in aqueous solutions, 2.5-µl solution volumes were
"sandwiched" between two coverslips to produce aqueous layers of
~5-µm thickness. Three to six individual recovery curves were
generally averaged. For cell measurements, the coverglass containing
the cultured cells (facing upward) was mounted in a perfusion chamber
and positioned on the microscope stage. Measurements were made on
different cells for analysis of individual recovery curves or groups of
averaged recovery curves.
Photobleaching with Confocal Image Detection--
A Nipkow wheel
confocal microscope (Leitz upright microscope with Technical
Instruments K2-Bio coaxial-confocal attachment) and cooled CCD camera
detector (Photometrics) were used to acquire cell images after
bleaching. An electronically shuttered bleach beam from the argon laser
was directed onto the cell sample from below using a Leitz ×25 long
working distance air objective. Cells were viewed from above by
epifluorescence using the ×60 oil immersion objective and fluorescein
filter set. Software was written to coordinate the bleach pulse,
excitation and camera shutters, and image acquisition.
Analysis of Photobleaching Data--
Apparent D
values were determined from t1/2 using an
experimentally determined calibration relation of
t1/2 versus D
obtained with solutions of fluorescein in defined water/glycerol mixtures (8). t1/2 values were determined
from pre-bleach fluorescence and the fluorescence recovery time course
as described previously (12). Data obtained in cells using the ×60
objective were compared with the calibration relation obtained with the ×20 objective using a correction factor of 9.3 determined from the
ratio of t1/2 measured using the ×20
versus ×60 objectives in cells expressing green fluorescent
protein in their cytoplasm (13).
The diffusional mobilities of fluorescein-labeled DNAs were
measured after microinjection into cytoplasm or nucleus of HeLa cells.
Fig. 1 shows representative confocal
micrographs of microinjected cells. After microinjection into
cytoplasm, a double-stranded 21-mer phosphorothioate oligonucleotide
accumulated rapidly in the nucleus (2- and 5-min micrographs shown in
Fig. 1, A and B). Similar results were found for
single-stranded phosphodiester and phosphorothioate oligonucleotides
(not shown). In contrast, little diffusion away from the cytoplasmic
microinjection site was found for a 6000-bp linear double-stranded DNA
fragment at 5 min (Fig. 1C) and 60 min (Fig. 1D)
after microinjection. (The nucleus is out of the image field in Fig. 1,
C and D.) A 500-bp DNA fragment distributed
through the cytoplasm (Fig. 1E) and nucleus (Fig.
1F) within a few minutes after microinjection but did not cross the nuclear membrane.
8 to
0.81 × 10
8 cm2/s for sizes of 21-6000
bp; Dw was related empirically to DNA size:
Dw = 4.9 × 10
6
cm2/s·[bp size]
0.72. DNA diffusion
coefficients in cytoplasm (Dcyto) were lower
than Dw and depended strongly on DNA size.
Dcyto/Dw decreased from
0.19 for a 100-bp DNA fragment to 0.06 for a 250-bp DNA fragment and
was <0.01 for >2000 bp. Diffusion of microinjected fluorescein
isothiocyanate (FITC) dextrans was faster than that of comparably sized
DNA fragments of 250 bp and greater. In nucleus, all DNA fragments were
nearly immobile, whereas FITC dextrans of molecular size up to 580 kDa
were fully mobile. These results suggest that the highly restricted
diffusion of DNA fragments in nucleoplasm results from extensive
binding to immobile obstacles and that the decreased lateral mobility
of DNAs >250 bp in cytoplasm is because of molecular crowding. The
diffusion of DNA in cytoplasm may thus be an important rate-limiting
barrier in gene delivery utilizing non-viral vectors.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
View larger version (24K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Confocal fluorescence micrographs of HeLa
cells after microinjection with fluorescein-labeled DNA fragments.
Micrographs were taken with ×60 oil immersion objective and cooled CCD
camera as described under "Materials and Methods." A and
B, cytoplasm was microinjected with 21-mer double-stranded
oligonucleotide. Micrographs were obtained at 2 min (A) and
5 min (B) after microinjection. C and
D, cytoplasm injected with double-stranded linear 6000-bp
DNA with micrographs recorded at 5 min (C) and 60 min
(D) after microinjection. E and F,
cytoplasm (E) and nucleus (F) microinjected with
double-stranded 500-bp DNA fragment. Micrographs were obtained at 10 min after microinjection.
Spot photobleaching experiments were carried out for quantitative
determination of diffusion coefficients. Fig.
2A shows photobleaching recovery curves for saline solutions of fluorescein-labeled DNA fragments. Measurements were carried out on thin solution layers between coverglasses using a ×20 objective (spot diameter ~4 µm). The signals recovered to approximately the pre-bleach fluorescence as
expected for unhindered probe diffusion in aqueous solutions. The
recovery rates depended strongly on DNA size with
t1/2 increasing from 24 ms
(oligonucleotide) to ~1500 ms (6000-bp DNA fragment). Fig.
2B shows a log-log plot of deduced diffusion coefficients (Dw) versus DNA molecular size (in kDa),
with an empirical linear fit, Dw = 4.9 × 10
6 cm2/s·[bp size]
0.72.
For comparison Dw values for size-fractionated FITC dextrans are shown.
|
Spot photobleaching measurements were done in HeLa cells microinjected
with the fluorescein-labeled DNA fragments. Cells were illuminated
using a ×60 oil immersion objective (spot diameter ~1.3 µm). As
described under "Materials and Methods," care was taken to avoid
photobleaching by the probe beam, and bleach time and intensity were
set to give bleach depth <30% of initial intensity and bleach time
under 5% of recovery half-time. Original recovery curves for the
diffusion of fluorescein-labeled DNA fragments are shown in Fig.
3A for cytoplasm and Fig.
3B for nucleus. (Because the microinjected oligonucleotide
disappeared very quickly from the cytoplasm, it was not possible to
make an accurate photobleaching measurement of oligonucleotide
diffusion in cytoplasm.) DNA diffusion in cytoplasm was strongly
size-dependent. The majority of labeled DNA was mobile in
cytoplasm for up to 1000 bp as shown by the nearly complete
fluorescence recoveries. In contrast, DNAs of all sizes diffused very
slowly in nucleus. Similar measurements were made in cytoplasm and
nucleus microinjected with FITC dextrans in place of the
fluorescein-labeled DNA fragments. Fig. 3C shows that the
70- and 580-kDa FITC dextrans diffused freely in cytoplasm and nucleus
(equivalent to DNA sizes of 106 and 878 bp, respectively), whereas the
2000-kDa FITC dextran was essentially immobile.
|
Control studies were done to prove that the recovery signals above
represented translational diffusion of the fluorescein-labeled DNA
fragments. Measurements of fluorescence recovery rates were done as a
function of spot diameter and bleach time/intensity (as done in Refs.
17 and 18). Recovery rates decreased with increasing bleach spot
diameter, as expected for a diffusion-related process. Fig.
4A shows recovery curves for
bleaching of the 250-bp DNA fragment using ×60 and ×100 objectives;
the recovery t1/2 increased by more than
2-fold for the lower power objective. The recovery rates were not
dependent on solution O2 content (Fig. 4A,
lower curve), indicating that triplet state
relaxation processes do not contribute to the fluorescence recovery.
However, when samples containing fluorescein-labeled DNA fragments were
bleached by a brief laser pulse, a very fast fluorescence recovery
process (<2 ms) was observed, as seen in Fig. 4B for the
fluorescein-labeled oligonucleotide in nucleus. In contrast to the
slower recovery processes in Fig. 3, the time course of the very fast
process was not dependent on spot size
(t1/2 1.7 ± 0.1 (S.E.,
n = 7) and 2.1 ± 0.3 ms for ×60 and ×20
objectives), was abolished in buffers saturated with 100%
O2 (Fig. 4B, lower curve),
and was readily observed at low bleach intensities and short bleach times (not shown). As discussed in Refs. 17 and 19, this rapid reversible photophysical process probably arises from triplet state
relaxation and is unrelated to DNA diffusion.
|
Fig. 4C shows serial fluorescence micrographs after bleaching a large spot in the cytoplasm or nucleus. Direct visualization is useful to identify any unusual compartmentation or other phenomena that might alter the interpretation of the quantitative spot photobleaching experiments in Fig. 3. In each case a pre-bleach micrograph is shown at the left; serial fluorescence micrographs at indicated times are shown at the right. Consistent with the spot photobleaching recovery curves, fluorescence recovery was seen for a 250-bp DNA fragment in cytoplasm over 10-25 s (top row of micrographs), whereas essentially no recovery was seen in nucleus (bottom row of micrographs). (The considerably slower recovery t1/2 values in cytoplasm compared with data in Fig. 3A are because of the much larger spot size.) There was little compartmentation or major DNA-inaccessible compartments.
Fig. 5 summarizes relative DNA diffusion
coefficients in cytoplasm (Dcyto) and nucleus
(Dnuc) relative to that in water
(Dw). For comparison,
Dcyto/Dw and
Dnuc/Dw for microinjected FITC dextrans are shown (see "Discussion").
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This study provides basic information about the diffusional mobility of naked DNA fragments in cytoplasm and nucleus. The DNA fragments were introduced by microinjection to study their mobilities in the aqueous compartments of cytoplasm and nucleus without complicating factors such as vesicular compartmentation and degradation resulting from prolonged incubation. After microinjection into the cytoplasm, small oligonucleotides diffused promptly into the nucleus where they became remarkably hindered in their diffusion. A DNA fragment of 100 bp was fully mobile in cytoplasm with a diffusive rate only ~5 times slower than in water, similar to that of a comparably sized FITC dextran. The diffusion of larger DNA fragments in cytoplasm became remarkably slowed, with little or no diffusion for DNAs >2000 bp. In nucleus, DNA fragments of all sizes were nearly immobile on a distance scale of ~1 micron and a time scale of several minutes. In contrast, similar sized FITC dextrans up to 580 kDa diffused freely in the nucleus. The immobilization of DNA by the nucleus is probably because of extensive DNA binding to nuclear components, including the positively charged histones. These findings indicate that diffusion of DNAs can be a significant rate-limiting barrier in the cellular processing of plasmids and large DNA fragments, particularly when diffusion and nuclear uptake compete with degradation by cytosolic nucleases (20).
The microinjected oligonucleotide was rapidly taken up by the nucleus,
such that little cytoplasmic fluorescence remained a few minutes after
microinjection. This observation is consistent with the efficient
accumulation of oligonucleotides in the nucleus that has been
attributed to oligonucleotide binding to nuclear proteins (21) and
active nuclear import (22). Our finding of impeded oligonucleotide
mobility in nucleus is consistent with the avid nuclear accumulation of
oligonucleotides. Politz et al. (23) recently reported the
diffusion of fluorescein-labeled oligo(dA) and -(dT) (43-mers) in the
nucleus of cultured rat myoblasts measured by fluorescence correlation
spectroscopy. They found that although the majority of oligo(dT) was
immobile, probably because of hybridization to poly(A) sequences, a
significant fraction of the poly(dT) was free with an apparent
diffusion coefficient of 4 × 10
7 cm2/s,
nearly the same as that measured in aqueous solutions. From previous
measurements (12) and data here showing that nuclear diffusion of
non-reactive dextrans and Ficolls (0.5-500 kDa) is 3-5 times slower
than in water, it is anticipated that nuclear diffusion of an
oligonucleotide, even if it does not bind to nuclear components, must
be substantially slower than in water. Further, rapid oligonucleotide
diffusion appears to be inconsistent with the stable nuclear
accumulation of oligonucleotides. The differences between the results
here and those of Politz et al. (23) could be related to
differences in the cells and/or oligonucleotides or possibly reversible
photobleaching processes, which can be difficult to evaluate in
fluorescence correlation spectroscopy measurements. We note that the
recovery t1/2 for the reversible recovery
(Fig. 4B) would predict an apparent oligonucleotide
diffusion coefficient of 1-2 times faster than that in
water, which could be misinterpreted as rapid diffusion in nucleus. The
imaging study in Fig. 4C confirms the relative
immobility of the oligonucleotide in nucleus.
The DNA diffusion coefficients measured here in solution are in general
agreement with the few reported data. Bjorling et al. (24)
used fluorescence correlation spectroscopy to detect DNA products
formed during PCR. They reported that the relative translational
diffusion coefficient decreased linearly with the length of
double-stranded DNA fragments, decreasing 5-fold with fragments of
50-500 nucleotides. Fishman and Patterson (25) estimated the diffusion
coefficient of a linearized 3.7-kilobase plasmid by low angle dynamic
light scattering to be 2.9 × 10
8 cm2/s.
We found that the DNA diffusion coefficient decreased by 65-fold with
increasing DNA size from 21 to 6000 bp. This decrease is quite
different from that predicted for a spherical molecule, indicating the
complex hydrodynamic properties of DNA with respect to translational diffusion.
There was a dramatic reduction of DNA diffusive rates in cytoplasm as
DNA size increased beyond 1000 bp (660 kDa). Whereas the relative
diffusion coefficient of DNA in cytoplasm compared with water
(Dcyto/Dw) was approximately
unity for small oligonucleotides,
Dcyto/Dw progressively decreased
to 0.19, 0.067, and 0.032 for DNA fragments of 100, 250, and 500 bp,
respectively. The diffusion of DNAs of 3000 bp or greater was
immeasurably slow. The slowing of DNA diffusion could represent a
combination of binding and crowding effects. We believe that binding
effects are not primarily responsible for the slowed diffusion of large
DNA fragments because binding interactions should not depend strongly
on DNA size. Thus molecular crowding and collisional interactions
probably are responsible for the slowed DNA diffusion. Yarmola et
al. (26) measured DNA diffusion in a 1% agarose gel from band
spreading in the absence of an electric field. The DNA diffusion
coefficient decreased from 1.7 to 0.2 × 10
8
cm2/s for DNA size of 1-3 kilobases. The substantially
more crowded cellular environment, in which 10-15% of cytoplasm is
occupied by macromolecules (8), is expected to produce an even stronger dependence of intracellular diffusion on DNA size.
The very slow diffusion of plasmid-size DNA fragments in cells is an
important observation with regard to gene therapy. Vectors and cellular
factors that enhance cytoplasmic DNA mobility may thus have value in
increasing the efficacy of gene expression. The slow diffusion of
plasmid DNA in the cytosol has probably necessitated the evolution of
efficient packaging and transport mechanisms to transport viral DNA
across the cytoplasm. Interactions between viral capsid proteins and
the microtubular network and/or the actin cytoskeleton appears to
account for the efficient nuclear targeting of viral particles (27).
The vectorial transport of viruses to the nucleus could thus serve as a
paradigm to design more efficient DNA delivery systems to improve
non-viral gene delivery methods.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants DK43840, HL60288, DK35124, and HL59198, Gene Therapy Core Center Grant DK47766, Research Development Program Grant R613 from the National Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, a SPARXII award from the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and funds from the Lung Gene Therapy initiative of the Hospital for Sick Children.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
§ Scholar of Medical Research Council of Canada.
¶ To whom correspondence should be addressed: 1246 Health Sciences East Tower, Cardiovascular Research Inst., University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0521. Tel.: 415-476-8530; Fax: 415-665-3847; E-mail: verkman@itsa.ucsf.edu; http://www.ucsf.edu/verklab.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: FITC, fluorescein isothiocyanate; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; bp, base pair(s).
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Hope, M. J., Mul, B., Ansell, S., and Ahkong, Q. (1998) Mol. Membr. Biol. 15, 1-14[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 2. | Kashihara, N., Maeshima, Y., and Makino, H. (1998) Exp. Nephrol. 6, 84-88[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 3. | Ho, P. T., and Parkinson, D. R. (1997) Semin. Oncol. 24, 187-202[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 4. | Xu, Y., and Szoka, F. C. (1996) Biochemistry 35, 5616-5623[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 5. | Friend, D. S., Papahadjopoulos, D., and Debs, R. J. (1996) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1278, 41-50[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 6. | Wrobel, I., and Collins, D. (1995) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1235, 296-304[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 7. |
Zabner, J.,
Fasbender, A.,
Moninger, T.,
Poellinger, K. A.,
and Welsh, M. J.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
18997-19007 |
| 8. |
Kao, H. P.,
Abney, J. R.,
and Verkman, A. S.
(1993)
J. Cell Biol.
120,
175-184 |
| 9. | Bicknese, S., Periasamy, N., Shohet, S. B., and Verkman, A. S. (1993) Biophys. J. 165, 1272-1282 |
| 10. |
Fushimi, K.,
and Verkman, A. S.
(1991)
J. Cell Biol.
112,
719-725 |
| 11. |
Luby-Phelps, K.,
Mujundar, S.,
Mujundar, R.,
Ernst, L.,
Galbraith, W.,
and Waggoner, S.
(1993)
Biophys. J.
65,
236-242 |
| 12. |
Seksek, O.,
Biwersi, J.,
and Verkman, A. S.
(1997)
J. Cell Biol.
138,
131-142 |
| 13. |
Swaminathan, R.,
Hoang, C. P.,
and Verkman, A. S.
(1997)
Biophys. J.
72,
1900-1907 |
| 14. |
Partikian, A.,
Ölveczky, B.,
Swaminathan, R.,
Li, Y.,
and Verkman, A. S.
(1998)
J. Cell Biol.
140,
821-829 |
| 15. |
Dayel, M. J.,
Hom, E. F.,
and Verkman, A. S.
(1999)
Biophys. J.
76,
2843-2851 |
| 16. | Kao, H. P., and Verkman, A. S. (1996) Biophys. Chem. 59, 203-210[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 17. | Periasamy, N., Bicknese, S., and Verkman, A. S. (1996) Photochem. Photobiol. 63, 265-271[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 18. |
Swaminathan, R.,
Bicknese, S.,
Periasamy, N.,
and Verkman, A. S.
(1996)
Biophys. J.
71,
1140-1151 |
| 19. |
Song, L.,
Varma, C. A.,
Verhoeven, J. W.,
and Tanke, H. J.
(1996)
Biophys. J.
70,
2959-2968 |
| 20. | Lechardeur, D., Sohn, K. J., Haard, M., Joshi, P. B., Monck, M., Graham, R. W., Beatty, B., Squire, J., O'Brodovich, H., and Lukacs, G. L. (1999) Gene Ther. 6, 482-497[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 21. |
Leonetti, J. P.,
Mechti, N.,
Degols, G.,
Gagnor, C.,
and Lebleu, B.
(1991)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
88,
2702-2706 |
| 22. | Zelphati, O., and Szoka, F. C. (1996) Pharm. Res. (N. Y.) 13, 1367-1372[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 23. |
Politz, J. C.,
Browne, E. S.,
Wolf, D. E.,
and Pederson, T.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
6043-6048 |
| 24. | Bjorling, S., Kinjo, M., Folders-Papp, Z., Hagman, E., Thybert, P., and Rigler, R. (1998) Biochemistry 37, 12971-12978[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 25. | Fishman, D. M., and Patterson, G. D. (1996) Biopolymers 38, 535-552[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 26. | Yarmola, E., Sokoloff, H., and Chrambach, A. (1996) Electrophoresis 17, 1416-1419[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 27. |
Sodeik, B.,
Ebersold, M. W.,
and Helenius, A.
(1997)
J. Cell Biol.
136,
1007-1021 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
S. Doose, H. Barsch, and M. Sauer Polymer Properties of Polythymine as Revealed by Translational Diffusion Biophys. J., August 15, 2007; 93(4): 1224 - 1234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. E. Vandenbroucke, B. Lucas, J. Demeester, S. C. De Smedt, and N. N. Sanders Nuclear accumulation of plasmid DNA can be enhanced by non-selective gating of the nuclear pore Nucleic Acids Res., June 21, 2007; (2007) gkm440v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. S. Dandy, P. Wu, and D. W. Grainger Array feature size influences nucleic acid surface capture in DNA microarrays PNAS, May 15, 2007; 104(20): 8223 - 8228. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Braeckmans, K. Remaut, R. E. Vandenbroucke, B. Lucas, S. C. De Smedt, and J. Demeester Line FRAP with the Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope for Diffusion Measurements in Small Regions of 3-D Samples Biophys. J., March 15, 2007; 92(6): 2172 - 2183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A.-T. Dinh, C. Pangarkar, T. Theofanous, and S. Mitragotri Understanding Intracellular Transport Processes Pertinent to Synthetic Gene Delivery via Stochastic Simulations and Sensitivity Analyses Biophys. J., February 1, 2007; 92(3): 831 - 846. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Grunwald, B. Spottke, V. Buschmann, and U. Kubitscheck Intranuclear Binding Kinetics and Mobility of Single Native U1 snRNP Particles in Living Cells Mol. Biol. Cell, December 1, 2006; 17(12): 5017 - 5027. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Pack, K. Saito, M. Tamura, and M. Kinjo Microenvironment and Effect of Energy Depletion in the Nucleus Analyzed by Mobility of Multiple Oligomeric EGFPs Biophys. J., November 15, 2006; 91(10): 3921 - 3936. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. W. Kamau, P. O. Hassa, B. Steitz, A. Petri-Fink, H. Hofmann, M. Hofmann-Amtenbrink, B. von Rechenberg, and M. O. Hottiger Enhancement of the efficiency of non-viral gene delivery by application of pulsed magnetic field Nucleic Acids Res., March 15, 2006; 34(5): e40 - e40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Beaudouin, F. Mora-Bermudez, T. Klee, N. Daigle, and J. Ellenberg Dissecting the Contribution of Diffusion and Interactions to the Mobility of Nuclear Proteins Biophys. J., March 15, 2006; 90(6): 1878 - 1894. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. M. Gorisch, M. Wachsmuth, K. F. Toth, P. Lichter, and K. Rippe Histone acetylation increases chromatin accessibility J. Cell Sci., December 15, 2005; 118(24): 5825 - 5834. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Y. Vargas, A. Raj, S. A. E. Marras, F. R. Kramer, and S. Tyagi Mechanism of mRNA transport in the nucleus PNAS, November 22, 2005; 102(47): 17008 - 17013. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Shimizu, F. Kamezaki, and S. Shigematsu Tracking of microinjected DNA in live cells reveals the intracellular behavior and elimination of extrachromosomal genetic material Nucleic Acids Res., November 3, 2005; 33(19): 6296 - 6307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. S. Banks and C. Fradin Anomalous Diffusion of Proteins Due to Molecular Crowding Biophys. J., November 1, 2005; 89(5): 2960 - 2971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Z.-Q. Cui, Z.-P. Zhang, X.-E. Zhang, J.-K. Wen, Y.-F. Zhou, and W.-H. Xie Visualizing the dynamic behavior of poliovirus plus-strand RNA in living host cells Nucleic Acids Res., June 7, 2005; 33(10): 3245 - 3252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. P. Kulkarni, D. D. Wu, M. E. Davis, and S. E. Fraser Quantitating intracellular transport of polyplexes by spatio-temporal image correlation spectroscopy PNAS, May 24, 2005; 102(21): 7523 - 7528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C.-W. Wei, J.-Y. Cheng, C.-T. Huang, M.-H. Yen, and T.-H. Young Using a microfluidic device for 1 {micro}l DNA microarray hybridization in 500 s Nucleic Acids Res., May 12, 2005; 33(8): e78 - e78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Dauty and A. S. Verkman Actin Cytoskeleton as the Principal Determinant of Size-dependent DNA Mobility in Cytoplasm: A NEW BARRIER FOR NON-VIRAL GENE DELIVERY J. Biol. Chem., March 4, 2005; 280(9): 7823 - 7828. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Roy, T. Y. Ohulchanskyy, D. J. Bharali, H. E. Pudavar, R. A. Mistretta, N. Kaur, and P. N. Prasad Optical tracking of organically modified silica nanoparticles as DNA carriers: A nonviral, nanomedicine approach for gene delivery PNAS, January 11, 2005; 102(2): 279 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Kamada, H. Nagaya, T. Tamura, M. Kinjo, H.-Y. Jin, T. Yamashita, K. Jimbow, H. Kanoh, and I. Wada Regulation of Immature Protein Dynamics in the Endoplasmic Reticulum J. Biol. Chem., May 14, 2004; 279(20): 21533 - 21542. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Mearini, P. E. Nielsen, and F. O. Fackelmayer Localization and dynamics of small circular DNA in live mammalian nuclei Nucleic Acids Res., May 11, 2004; 32(8): 2642 - 2651. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Tseng, J. S. H. Lee, T. P. Kole, I. Jiang, and D. Wirtz Micro-organization and visco-elasticity of the interphase nucleus revealed by particle nanotracking J. Cell Sci., April 15, 2004; 117(10): 2159 - 2167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Mangenot, S. Keller, and J. Radler Transport of Nucleosome Core Particles in Semidilute DNA Solutions Biophys. J., September 1, 2003; 85(3): 1817 - 1825. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Liu, D. Li, M. K. Pasumarthy, T. H. Kowalczyk, C. R. Gedeon, S. L. Hyatt, J. M. Payne, T. J. Miller, P. Brunovskis, T. L. Fink, et al. Nanoparticles of Compacted DNA Transfect Postmitotic Cells J. Biol. Chem., August 29, 2003; 278(35): 32578 - 32586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
|