Re: Alexa 750

Posted by Fredrik Wermeling on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Alexa-750-tp1459204p1461586.html

One word of caution regarding the Qdots is that since they are excited by all lasers you can´t
do sequential scanning (or at least you won´t benefit from it)  and thus need to really trust
your filter settings. I have however used Qdot605 successfully in combination with alexa488
and alexa647. Nowadays I prefer to use alexa555 instead of the Qdot605, to be able to
record individual channels and minimize crosstalk. For four color staining I´ve included a
Pacific Blue conjugated antibody, recorded in the dapi channel, to the above combination
with ok result.

Good luck!
/Fredrik    

--------------------------------------
Fredrik Wermeling, PhD-student
Karolinska Institutet
Department of Medicine
Unit of Clinical Allergy Research
L2:04 Karolinska Hospital
SE-171 76 Stockholm
Sweden

phone: +46-8-51776696
mail: [hidden email]
fax: +46-8-335724
--------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: Guillermo Palchik <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: Alexa 750
To: [hidden email]

> Another possibility, if you already are thinking of having 5
> colors,  
> you should start considering using quantum dots...
>
> On Nov 5, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Robert J. Palmer Jr. wrote:
>
> > One could also try a long-Stokes-shift fluor such as Chromeo 494  
> > that is excited together with AF 488 or FITC, but that emits in
> the  
> > mid 600s.  No unmixing required when doing sequential scans.
> >
> >> Hi Olivier,
> >>
> >> I agree with Julio that the Alexa 750 may not be the best
> choice.  
> >> One possibility is to add in another red dye that could be  
> >> separated from the Cy3 using the META detector - either Alexa
> 568  
> >> or Rhodamine Red-X should work fine, in our experience.  Another
> is  
> >> to add a second green colour and separate that from the FITC
> using  
> >> the META - or maybe swap from FITC to AF 488 if possible? - we
> have  
> >> separated AF 488 and AF 514 nicely using the META, and the META  
> >> detector is anyway most sensitive in the green emission region.  
>
> >> You would need to tweak the labelling conditions so that the  
> >> colours you are using with the META detector are pretty well  
> >> balanced, and we also tend to prefer collecting the regular  
> >> channels in one scan and the fluorochromes to be unmixed by the  
> >> META in a separate scan.- e.g. if you were using two reds, set
> up a  
> >> DAPI/FITC/Cy5 regular scan, followed by a lambda stack just
> imaging  
> >> the reds.  Then combine the results after unmixing.  If you try
> to  
> >> collect everything on one lambda scan, you will have the problem
> of  
> >> having to uncheck the window before and after each of the  
> >> additional laser lines in the lambda stack when you do the
> unmixing.>>
> >> I hope this makes sense, if not please feel free to contact me  
> >> offline.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Alison
> >>
> >> Julio Vazquez wrote:
> >>> =
> >>> Hi Olivier,
> >>> I doubt the META detector can read emissions past 720-750 nm.  
> >>> Also, if you look at the excitation/emission spectra of Alexa
> 750,  
> >>> such as here:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.bdbiosciences.com/spectra/
> >>>
> >>> you will see that with standard confocal lasers (488,  
> >>> 543/561/633), you will achieve an excitation efficiency of at
> most  
> >>> 10%. Finally, if you want to use a conventional detector, you  
> >>> would need an appropriate emission filter on your confocal,
> such  
> >>> as a longpass 730 or higher, which is probably not standard,
> and  
> >>> you probably would have rather poor detection efficiency,
> unless  
> >>> you have special IR PMTs...
> >>>
> >>> One suggestion would be to use a dye in the red range that you
> can  
> >>> spectrally separate from Cy3, or maybe use something with a
> large  
> >>> stokes shift, such as a Qdot 605 or similar, that you can
> excite  
> >>> at around 450 or 488, and detect in the red channel, and
> therefore  
> >>> can be separated from Cy3 based on the different excitation  
> >>> efficiency. Something like Cy5-PE might work too (Excitation at
>
> >>> 488, emission at 680)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Julio Vazquez
> >>> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
> >>> Seattle, WA 98109-1024
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.fhcrc.org/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 5, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Olivier Bardot wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello
> >>>> We are using DAPI, FITC, Cy3 and Cy5 for immunolabelling. We
> want  
> >>>> to use a
> >>>> fifth label and have found that Alexa750 seems to be a good  
> >>>> possibility.
> >>>> We are working on Zeiss LSM 510 Meta.
> >>>> Does anyone have been using this dye?
> >>>> Is it really possible to discriminate Cy3 from Alexa750?
> >>>> I will appreciate any advices.
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alison J. North, Ph.D.,
> >> Research Assistant Professor and Director of the Bio-Imaging  
> >> Resource Center,
> >> The Rockefeller University,
> >> 1230 York Avenue,
> >> New York,
> >> NY 10065.
> >> Tel: office ++ 212 327 7488
> >> Tel: lab   ++ 212 327 7486
> >> Fax:       ++ 212 327 7489
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
> > Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
> > Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
> > Bldg 30, Room 310
> > 30 Convent Drive
> > Bethesda MD 20892
> > ph 301-594-0025
> > fax 301-402-0396
>
> Guillermo Palchik
> [hidden email]
>