首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     

两种萤火虫荧光素酶活性检测方法的一致性比较
引用本文:孙志东,孙萍,付秋霞,王怡,周勇,彭剑淳,詹林盛. 两种萤火虫荧光素酶活性检测方法的一致性比较[J]. 生物技术通讯, 2008, 19(1): 80-83
作者姓名:孙志东  孙萍  付秋霞  王怡  周勇  彭剑淳  詹林盛
作者单位:军事医学科学院,野战输血研究所,北京,100850
摘    要:目的:比较2种萤火虫荧光素酶活性检测方法的一致性。方法:分别采用化学发光技术(Che)及活体光学成像技术(Bio),从细胞和动物水平检测在转染以萤火虫荧光素酶为报告基因的载体pCI-AAA-Fluc-neo后不同时间点,萤火虫荧光素酶的表达强度。结果:在细胞和动物水平,萤火虫荧光素酶的表达强度均随时间推移逐步递减。在HepG2细胞,萤火虫荧光素酶表达持续96h,活性从24h的2781±220mV(1.6×10^6±2.3×10^5光子)降至96h的49±3.5mV(6.4×10^4±2.5×10^4光子)。在动物水平得到相似的结果,BALB/c小鼠萤火虫荧光素酶表达持续20d,其活性从1d的16592±409mV(1.9×10^8±3.6×10^6光子)降至20d的798±139mV(3.37×10^5±3.8×10^4光子)。通过一致性检验,2种检测方法在细胞和动物水平的直线回归方程分别为lgChe=1.186·lgBio-3.764(r=-0.937,P〈0.001)和lgChe=0.451·lgBio+0.64(r=0.915,P〈0.001);进一步将理论数据与实验数据进行配对t检验,二者无统计学差异(P〉0.05)。结论:2种检测方法是一致的;从整个实验过程来看,活体光学成像技术较化学发光法更为简便、直观,可量化地对同一个体连续检测,减少了个体间差异和实验动物用量。

关 键 词:活体光学成像  化学发光  萤火虫荧光素酶
文章编号:1009-0002(2008)01-0080-04
收稿时间:2007-04-16
修稿时间:2007-04-16

The Agreement Study of the Different Methods Used for Detecting the Firefly Luciferase Activity
SUN Zhi-Dong,SUN Ping,FU Qiu-Xia,WANG Yi,ZHOU Yong,PENG Jian-Chun,ZHAN Lin-Sheng. The Agreement Study of the Different Methods Used for Detecting the Firefly Luciferase Activity[J]. Letters in Biotechnology, 2008, 19(1): 80-83
Authors:SUN Zhi-Dong  SUN Ping  FU Qiu-Xia  WANG Yi  ZHOU Yong  PENG Jian-Chun  ZHAN Lin-Sheng
Affiliation:(Beijing Institute of Transfusion Medicine, Beijing 100850, China)
Abstract:Objective: To study the agreement between chemiluminescence assay(Che) and bioluminescence imaging(Bio) used for detecting the firefly luciferase(Fluc) activity. Methods: The methods of chemiluminescence assay and bioluminescence imaging were used to detect the Flue expression level at series time points after transfected with the vector pCIAAA-Fluc-neo in which Fluc was as the report gene. Results: The results indicated that the Flue expression level was decreasing as time going on. In HepG2 cell, the expression of Flue lasted 96 h, the activity of Flue decreased from 2781±220 mV(1.6×10^6±2.3×10^5 photons) at 24 h to 49±3.5 mV(6.4×10^4±2.5×10^4 photons) at 96 h. Similarly in vivo, the expression of Flue of mice lasted 20 d, the activity of Flue decreased from 16592±409 mV(1.9×10^8±3.6×10^6 photons) at 1 d to 798±139 mV(3.37×10^5±3.8×10^4 photons) at 20 d. Through the agreement study, the line regression equations between the two methods at different levels were gotten lgChe=1.186·1gBio-3.764(r=0.937, P〈0.001, cell level) and lgChe=0.451·1gBio+0.64(r=0.915 P〈0.001, animal level). Further t-test showed no significant between theory data(gotten from the line regression equations) and experimental data (P〉0.05). Conclusion: The two methods are concordance with each other. Comparing the two methods, bioluminescence imaging is more convenient and direct. It also can detect the same individual continuously so as to greatly decrease the difference between individuals and usage amounts of animals.
Keywords:chemiluminescence assay   bioluminescence imaging   firefly luciferase
本文献已被 维普 万方数据 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号