Macromolecular-scale resolution in biological fluorescence microscopy.
Journal: 2006/October - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 0027-8424
Abstract:
We demonstrate far-field fluorescence microscopy with a focal-plane resolution of 15-20 nm in biological samples. The 10- to 12-fold multilateral increase in resolution below the diffraction barrier has been enabled by the elimination of molecular triplet state excitation as a major source of photobleaching of a number of dyes in stimulated emission depletion microscopy. Allowing for relaxation of the triplet state between subsequent excitation-depletion cycles yields an up to 30-fold increase in total fluorescence signal as compared with reported stimulated emission depletion illumination schemes. Moreover, it enables the reduction of the effective focal spot area by up to approximately 140-fold below that given by diffraction. Triplet-state relaxation can be realized either by reducing the repetition rate of pulsed lasers or by increasing the scanning speed such that the build-up of the triplet state is effectively prevented. This resolution in immunofluorescence imaging is evidenced by revealing nanoscale protein patterns on endosomes, the punctuated structures of intermediate filaments in neurons, and nuclear protein speckles in mammalian cells with conventional optics. The reported performance of diffraction-unlimited fluorescence microscopy opens up a pathway for addressing fundamental problems in the life sciences.
Relations:
Content
Citations
(87)
References
(30)
Chemicals
(2)
Organisms
(3)
Anatomy
(4)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(31): 11440-11445

Macromolecular-scale resolution in biological fluorescence microscopy

Departments of *NanoBiophotonics,
Cellular Biochemistry, and
Neurobiology, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, 37070 Göttingen, Germany
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ed.gdwg@llehs
Communicated by Erwin Neher, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany, June 14, 2006.

Author contributions: S.O.R., R.L., R.J., C.E., and S.W.H. designed research; G.D., J.K., R.M., M.A.A., and S.O.R. performed research; G.D., J.K., C.E., and S.W.H. analyzed data; and S.W.H. wrote the paper.

Received 2006 May 23

Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.

Abstract

We demonstrate far-field fluorescence microscopy with a focal-plane resolution of 15–20 nm in biological samples. The 10- to 12-fold multilateral increase in resolution below the diffraction barrier has been enabled by the elimination of molecular triplet state excitation as a major source of photobleaching of a number of dyes in stimulated emission depletion microscopy. Allowing for relaxation of the triplet state between subsequent excitation–depletion cycles yields an up to 30-fold increase in total fluorescence signal as compared with reported stimulated emission depletion illumination schemes. Moreover, it enables the reduction of the effective focal spot area by up to ≈140-fold below that given by diffraction. Triplet-state relaxation can be realized either by reducing the repetition rate of pulsed lasers or by increasing the scanning speed such that the build-up of the triplet state is effectively prevented. This resolution in immunofluorescence imaging is evidenced by revealing nanoscale protein patterns on endosomes, the punctuated structures of intermediate filaments in neurons, and nuclear protein speckles in mammalian cells with conventional optics. The reported performance of diffraction-unlimited fluorescence microscopy opens up a pathway for addressing fundamental problems in the life sciences.

Keywords: imaging, stimulated emission depletion illumination, subdiffraction, triplet state
Abstract

For more than a century, the resolution of a lens-based (far-field) optical microscope has been limited by diffraction (1). However, in the 1990s it became evident that the limiting role of diffraction can be broken in lens-based fluorescence microscopy if certain fluorophore properties are judiciously integrated into the image formation (2). The first viable concept of this kind is stimulated emission depletion (STED) microscopy (3), which, since its experimental validation (4, 5), has been key to solving a number of problems in biophysics (6) and cell biology (7, 8).

STED microscopy typically uses a scanning excitation spot that is overlapped with a doughnut-shaped counterpart for deexcitation of fluorophores by light, a phenomenon referred to as stimulated emission (9, 10). Oversaturating the deexcitation squeezes the fluorescence spot to subdiffraction dimensions (Fig. 1a) so that superresolved images emerge by scanning this spot through the object (5).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is zpq0310629830001.jpg

STED microscopy operation with interpulse time interval Δt. (a Left and Center) Measured focal spots (PSFs) for excitation (Exc; Left) (wavelength, 470 nm; blue) and STED (Center) (603 nm, orange). The blue spot of excitation light features a FWHM of 190 nm. (a Right) Applying a crest intensity ÎSTED yields the 22-nm effective (Eff) spot shown in green. (b) Fluorophore energy levels and potential bleaching pathways. Fluorescence from S1 is suppressed by stimulated emission. Stimulated emission may also excite the dye to a higher singlet state Sx, from which the molecule can cross to the triplet system Tx. In regions of weak STED pulse intensity, the molecule can directly cross to the T1 featuring a lifetime τT = 0.5–3 μs. Excitation of T1 molecules by subsequent pulses leads to reverse intersystem crossing or augmented photobleaching. (c) These adverse effects are counteracted by Δt > τT. Note the dramatic reduction in the focal spot area in a, resulting from STED.

The rate for deexcitation by stimulated emission is given by kSTED = σISTED, with σ denoting the fluorophore cross-section and ISTED denoting the intensity of the stimulating beam. Oversaturating the deexcitation requires kSTED be much larger than the fluorescence decay given by the inverse of the lifetime, τFl ≈ 1–5 ns, of the fluorescent state S1. With σ ≈ 10 cm, it follows that ISTED ≫ 1/(στFl) = 10 photons per second per squared centimeter, which, at a wavelength of λ = 600 nm, amounts to ÎSTED ≫ 33 MW/cm. This intensity value is at least 10-fold lower than what is required for multiphoton excitation (11), but still 10-fold larger than what is used for single-photon fluorescence excitation (3).

Therefore, to operate with a moderate average power, the excitation and the STED beams are implemented as synchronized pulse trains (3). The duration of the STED pulse τSTED is adjusted to a fraction of τFl, typically ≈0.2 ns, in which case the depletion of the excited state is an exponential function of the stimulating intensity: exp[−σ·τSTED·ISTED]. Hence, a doughnut-shaped focal distribution ISTED(r) featuring ISTED ≡ max[ISTED(r)] at the doughnut crest and ISTED(r= 0) = 0 at the center suppresses the signal throughout the focal region, except at r= 0. The remaining spot in the focal plane follows

equation image

with n sin α denoting the numerical aperture at which the doughnut is generated (12, 13). Thus, provided the doughnut zero is largely maintained, the resolution can be arbitrarily increased with increasing ISTED, in principle, down to the molecular scale (3).

An obvious challenge toward maximizing ISTED is elevated photobleaching of the fluorescent marker that usually scales nonlinearly with the applied intensity (14, 15). For example, at the typical 80-MHz repetition rate of mode-locked lasers, the average focal power applicable to the green dye Atto532 for STED is ≈15 mW (7). The associated ÎSTED = 250 MW/cm yields a resolution of Δr = 50–70 nm. Larger ÎSTED and hence much narrower focal spots were reached only with a red dye under relatively favorable photochemical conditions (13).

In STED microscopy, two bleaching pathways are imaginable (16): (i) the absorption of a fluorescent-state molecule, leading to a higher molecular singlet state, S1 → Sx>1, as it has been proposed for multiphoton microscopy (17) and (ii) the excitation of excited molecules that have crossed to a triplet state, T1 → Tx>1, or to another dark state with lifetime τT > 1 μs. The states Sx>1 and Tx>1 are well known starting points for bleaching reactions (Fig. 1b).

When considering the two routes, it becomes evident that the first one, S1 → Sx>1, is counteracted by stimulated emission, S1→ S0. With a wavelength optimized for the latter, S1 → Sx>1 excitation by the STED pulse is less probable. Nevertheless, because the cross-sections for S1 → Sx>1 are finite both at the STED and at the excitation wavelength, higher singlet excitation is possible. The superexcited Sx>1 molecule may bleach, cross to the triplet system Sx>1 → Tx>1 → T1, or return to the S1 (18). Referred to as internal conversion, the last process is very effective because it occurs within a few picoseconds. Because of the STED pulse duration of τSTED ≈ 0.2 ns, the putatively superexcited molecule is instantly quenched by the same pulse. Therefore, as long as the molecule remains in the singlet system, the STED pulse is able to protect the molecule from photobleaching.

Just the opposite is the case once the molecule has crossed to the triplet state T1. Because of its prolonged typical lifetime, τT ≈ 1 μs at ambient conditions, the T1 molecule is exposed to a train of intense excitation and STED pulses. Given the rather large molecular cross-sections (10 to 10 cm) for triplet absorption over a broad wavelength range, the STED pulse can efficiently pump up the molecule to higher triplet states Tx>1. The ≈80-MHz repetition rate of mode-locked lasers used so far for STED implies that an inherently fragile triplet molecule faces on average 80 intense STED pulses before relaxing to the S0. Moreover, most fluorophores spontaneously undergo S1 → T1 crossings with a probability of 1–10% per excitation cycle (18). At the doughnut hole, where the STED pulse is weak and the molecules relax spontaneously, stimulated emission does not override the intersystem crossing. Therefore, a remedy against this bleaching pathway is to illuminate molecules as little as possible within the time span τT ≈ 1 μs after the excitation.

Based on this reasoning, we have explored the operational principles of STED microscopy at a pulse repetition rate of 0.25 MHz that is 320 times lower than the standard rate of 80 MHz. The Δt = 4 μs time gap between subsequent pulse pairs ensures that most triplet-state molecules of τT ≈ 1 μs have returned to the ground state before encountering a second or third pulse pair (Fig. 1c). We have termed this illumination scheme triplet relaxation (T-Rex) STED.

Click here to view.

Acknowledgments

We thank A. Engler and A. Schönle for technical support regarding the spatial light modulator and the software Imspector, respectively, and B. Rankin for critically reading the manuscript. This work was supported by an Exzellenzfond grant from the Max Planck Society (to S.W.H.).

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

STEDstimulated emission depletion
T-Rextriplet relaxation
PSFpoint-spread function
LDlinear deconvolution.
Abbreviations

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.

Footnotes

References

  • 1. Abbe E. Arch. Mikrosk. Anat. Entwicklungsmech. 1873;9:413–420.[PubMed]
  • 2. Hell SW. Opt. Commun. 1994;106:19–22.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 3. Hell SW., Wichmann J. Opt. Lett. 1994;19:780–782.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 4. Klar T. A., Hell S. W. Opt. Lett. 1999;24:954–956.[PubMed]
  • 5. Klar T. A., Jakobs S., Dyba M., Egner A., Hell S. W. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2000;97:8206–8210.
  • 6. Sieber J. J., Willig K. I., Heintzmann R., Hell S. W., Lang T. Biophys. J. 2006;90:2843–2851.
  • 7. Willig K. I., Rizzoli S. O., Westphal V., Jahn R., Hell S. W. Nature. 2006;440:935–939.[PubMed]
  • 8. Kittel R. J., Wichmann C., Rasse T. M., Fouquet W., Schmidt M., Schmid A., Wagh D. A., Pawlu C., Kellner R., Willig K. I., et al. Science. 2006;312:1051–1054.[PubMed]
  • 9. Einstein A. Physik. Zeitschr. 1917;18:121–128.[PubMed]
  • 10. Schäfer F. P. Dye Lasers. Berlin: Springer; 1973. [PubMed]
  • 11. Denk W., Strickler J. H., Webb W. W. Science. 1990;248:73–76.[PubMed]
  • 12. Hell SW. Nat. Biotechnol. 2003;21:1347–1355.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 13. Westphal V., Hell SW. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005;94:143903.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 14. Eggeling C., Widengren J., Rigler R., Seidel C. A. M. Anal. Chem. 1998;70:2651–2659.[PubMed]
  • 15. Hopt A., Neher E. Biophys. J. 2001;80:2029–2036.
  • 16. Dyba M., Hell SW. Appl. Optics. 2003;42:5123–5129.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 17. Eggeling C., Volkmer A., Seidel C. A. M. ChemPhysChem. 2005;6:791–804.[PubMed]
  • 18. Kasha M. Rad. Res. 1960;(Suppl. 2):243–275.[PubMed]
  • 19. Torok P., Munro P. R. T. Opt. Expr. 2004;12:3605–3617.[PubMed]
  • 20. Weber K., Rathke PC., Osborn M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1978;75:1820–1824.[Google Scholar]
  • 21. Lichtenstein Y., Desnos C., Faundez V., Kelly RB., Clift-O’Grady L. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1998;95:11223–11228.[Google Scholar]
  • 22. Spector DL. Annu. Rev. Cell Biol. 1993;9:265–315.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 23. Misteli T., Spector DL. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 1998;10:323–331.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 24. Mintz P. J., Spector D. L. J. Struct. Biol. 2000;129:241–251.[PubMed]
  • 25. Monneron A., Bernhard W. J. Ultrastruct. Res. 1969;27:266–288.[PubMed]
  • 26. Yuan A., Nixon R. A., Rao M. V. Neurosci. Lett. 2006;393:264–268.[PubMed]
  • 27. Tikhonov A. N., Arsenin V. Y. Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems. New York: Wiley; 1977. [PubMed]
  • 28. Osborne M In: Cell Biology: A Laboratory Handbook. Celis J. E., editor. Vol. 2. San Diego: Academic; 1998. pp. 462–468. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 29. Dyba M., Hell SW. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002;88:163901.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 30. Dyba M., Jakobs S., Hell SW. Nat. Biotechnol. 2003;21:1303–1304.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 31. Gustafsson M. G. L. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2005;102:13081–13086.
  • 32. Heintzmann R., Jovin TM., Cremer C. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A. 2002;19:1599–1609.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 33. Hofmann M., Eggeling C., Jakobs S., Hell SW. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2005;102:17565–17569.[Google Scholar]
  • 34. Michalet X., Weiss S. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006;103:4797–4798.
  • 35. Ram S., Ward E. S., Ober R. J. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2006;103:4457–4462.
  • 36. Chao W. L., Harteneck B. D., Liddle J. A., Anderson E. H., Attwood D. T. Nature. 2005;435:1210–1213.[PubMed]
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.