Filter
Associated Lab
- Aguilera Castrejon Lab (15) Apply Aguilera Castrejon Lab filter
- Ahrens Lab (56) Apply Ahrens Lab filter
- Aso Lab (39) Apply Aso Lab filter
- Baker Lab (38) Apply Baker Lab filter
- Betzig Lab (110) Apply Betzig Lab filter
- Beyene Lab (10) Apply Beyene Lab filter
- Bock Lab (17) Apply Bock Lab filter
- Branson Lab (48) Apply Branson Lab filter
- Card Lab (40) Apply Card Lab filter
- Cardona Lab (63) Apply Cardona Lab filter
- Chklovskii Lab (13) Apply Chklovskii Lab filter
- Clapham Lab (12) Apply Clapham Lab filter
- Cui Lab (19) Apply Cui Lab filter
- Darshan Lab (12) Apply Darshan Lab filter
- Dennis Lab (1) Apply Dennis Lab filter
- Dickson Lab (46) Apply Dickson Lab filter
- Druckmann Lab (25) Apply Druckmann Lab filter
- Dudman Lab (46) Apply Dudman Lab filter
- Eddy/Rivas Lab (30) Apply Eddy/Rivas Lab filter
- Egnor Lab (11) Apply Egnor Lab filter
- Espinosa Medina Lab (16) Apply Espinosa Medina Lab filter
- Feliciano Lab (6) Apply Feliciano Lab filter
- Fetter Lab (41) Apply Fetter Lab filter
- Fitzgerald Lab (28) Apply Fitzgerald Lab filter
- Freeman Lab (15) Apply Freeman Lab filter
- Funke Lab (34) Apply Funke Lab filter
- Gonen Lab (91) Apply Gonen Lab filter
- Grigorieff Lab (62) Apply Grigorieff Lab filter
- Harris Lab (58) Apply Harris Lab filter
- Heberlein Lab (94) Apply Heberlein Lab filter
- Hermundstad Lab (22) Apply Hermundstad Lab filter
- Hess Lab (71) Apply Hess Lab filter
- Ilanges Lab (1) Apply Ilanges Lab filter
- Jayaraman Lab (44) Apply Jayaraman Lab filter
- Ji Lab (33) Apply Ji Lab filter
- Johnson Lab (6) Apply Johnson Lab filter
- Kainmueller Lab (19) Apply Kainmueller Lab filter
- Karpova Lab (14) Apply Karpova Lab filter
- Keleman Lab (13) Apply Keleman Lab filter
- Keller Lab (75) Apply Keller Lab filter
- Koay Lab (16) Apply Koay Lab filter
- Lavis Lab (136) Apply Lavis Lab filter
- Lee (Albert) Lab (34) Apply Lee (Albert) Lab filter
- Leonardo Lab (23) Apply Leonardo Lab filter
- Li Lab (25) Apply Li Lab filter
- Lippincott-Schwartz Lab (161) Apply Lippincott-Schwartz Lab filter
- Liu (Yin) Lab (5) Apply Liu (Yin) Lab filter
- Liu (Zhe) Lab (58) Apply Liu (Zhe) Lab filter
- Looger Lab (137) Apply Looger Lab filter
- Magee Lab (49) Apply Magee Lab filter
- Menon Lab (18) Apply Menon Lab filter
- Murphy Lab (13) Apply Murphy Lab filter
- O'Shea Lab (4) Apply O'Shea Lab filter
- Otopalik Lab (13) Apply Otopalik Lab filter
- Pachitariu Lab (41) Apply Pachitariu Lab filter
- Pastalkova Lab (18) Apply Pastalkova Lab filter
- Pavlopoulos Lab (19) Apply Pavlopoulos Lab filter
- Pedram Lab (14) Apply Pedram Lab filter
- Podgorski Lab (16) Apply Podgorski Lab filter
- Reiser Lab (49) Apply Reiser Lab filter
- Riddiford Lab (44) Apply Riddiford Lab filter
- Romani Lab (40) Apply Romani Lab filter
- Rubin Lab (139) Apply Rubin Lab filter
- Saalfeld Lab (60) Apply Saalfeld Lab filter
- Satou Lab (16) Apply Satou Lab filter
- Scheffer Lab (36) Apply Scheffer Lab filter
- Schreiter Lab (62) Apply Schreiter Lab filter
- Sgro Lab (20) Apply Sgro Lab filter
- Shroff Lab (23) Apply Shroff Lab filter
- Simpson Lab (23) Apply Simpson Lab filter
- Singer Lab (80) Apply Singer Lab filter
- Spruston Lab (91) Apply Spruston Lab filter
- Stern Lab (152) Apply Stern Lab filter
- Sternson Lab (54) Apply Sternson Lab filter
- Stringer Lab (29) Apply Stringer Lab filter
- Svoboda Lab (135) Apply Svoboda Lab filter
- Tebo Lab (31) Apply Tebo Lab filter
- Tervo Lab (9) Apply Tervo Lab filter
- Tillberg Lab (17) Apply Tillberg Lab filter
- Tjian Lab (64) Apply Tjian Lab filter
- Truman Lab (88) Apply Truman Lab filter
- Turaga Lab (46) Apply Turaga Lab filter
- Turner Lab (35) Apply Turner Lab filter
- Vale Lab (6) Apply Vale Lab filter
- Voigts Lab (2) Apply Voigts Lab filter
- Wang (Meng) Lab (9) Apply Wang (Meng) Lab filter
- Wang (Shaohe) Lab (24) Apply Wang (Shaohe) Lab filter
- Wu Lab (9) Apply Wu Lab filter
- Zlatic Lab (28) Apply Zlatic Lab filter
- Zuker Lab (25) Apply Zuker Lab filter
Associated Project Team
- CellMap (5) Apply CellMap filter
- COSEM (3) Apply COSEM filter
- Fly Descending Interneuron (10) Apply Fly Descending Interneuron filter
- Fly Functional Connectome (14) Apply Fly Functional Connectome filter
- Fly Olympiad (5) Apply Fly Olympiad filter
- FlyEM (51) Apply FlyEM filter
- FlyLight (46) Apply FlyLight filter
- GENIE (40) Apply GENIE filter
- Integrative Imaging (1) Apply Integrative Imaging filter
- Larval Olympiad (2) Apply Larval Olympiad filter
- MouseLight (16) Apply MouseLight filter
- NeuroSeq (1) Apply NeuroSeq filter
- ThalamoSeq (1) Apply ThalamoSeq filter
- Tool Translation Team (T3) (24) Apply Tool Translation Team (T3) filter
- Transcription Imaging (49) Apply Transcription Imaging filter
Publication Date
- 2024 (141) Apply 2024 filter
- 2023 (175) Apply 2023 filter
- 2022 (192) Apply 2022 filter
- 2021 (193) Apply 2021 filter
- 2020 (196) Apply 2020 filter
- 2019 (202) Apply 2019 filter
- 2018 (232) Apply 2018 filter
- 2017 (217) Apply 2017 filter
- 2016 (209) Apply 2016 filter
- 2015 (252) Apply 2015 filter
- 2014 (236) Apply 2014 filter
- 2013 (194) Apply 2013 filter
- 2012 (190) Apply 2012 filter
- 2011 (190) Apply 2011 filter
- 2010 (161) Apply 2010 filter
- 2009 (158) Apply 2009 filter
- 2008 (140) Apply 2008 filter
- 2007 (106) Apply 2007 filter
- 2006 (92) Apply 2006 filter
- 2005 (67) Apply 2005 filter
- 2004 (57) Apply 2004 filter
- 2003 (58) Apply 2003 filter
- 2002 (39) Apply 2002 filter
- 2001 (28) Apply 2001 filter
- 2000 (29) Apply 2000 filter
- 1999 (14) Apply 1999 filter
- 1998 (18) Apply 1998 filter
- 1997 (16) Apply 1997 filter
- 1996 (10) Apply 1996 filter
- 1995 (18) Apply 1995 filter
- 1994 (12) Apply 1994 filter
- 1993 (10) Apply 1993 filter
- 1992 (6) Apply 1992 filter
- 1991 (11) Apply 1991 filter
- 1990 (11) Apply 1990 filter
- 1989 (6) Apply 1989 filter
- 1988 (1) Apply 1988 filter
- 1987 (7) Apply 1987 filter
- 1986 (4) Apply 1986 filter
- 1985 (5) Apply 1985 filter
- 1984 (2) Apply 1984 filter
- 1983 (2) Apply 1983 filter
- 1982 (3) Apply 1982 filter
- 1981 (3) Apply 1981 filter
- 1980 (1) Apply 1980 filter
- 1979 (1) Apply 1979 filter
- 1976 (2) Apply 1976 filter
- 1973 (1) Apply 1973 filter
- 1970 (1) Apply 1970 filter
- 1967 (1) Apply 1967 filter
Type of Publication
3920 Publications
Showing 1321-1330 of 3920 resultsBACKGROUND: It has become increasingly clear that molecular and neural mechanisms underlying learning and memory and drug addiction are largely shared. To confirm and extend these findings, we analyzed ethanol-responsive behaviors of a collection of Drosophila long-term memory mutants. METHODS: For each mutant, sensitivity to the acute uncoordinating effects of ethanol was quantified using the inebriometer. Additionally, 2 distinct forms of ethanol tolerance were measured: rapid tolerance, which develops in response to a single brief exposure to a high concentration of ethanol vapor; and chronic tolerance, which develops following a sustained low-level exposure. RESULTS: Several mutants were identified with altered sensitivity, rapid or chronic tolerance, while a number of mutants exhibited multiple defects. CONCLUSIONS: The corresponding genes in these mutants represent areas of potential overlap between learning and memory and behavioral responses to alcohol. These genes also define components shared between different ethanol behavioral responses.
BACKGROUND: Increased ethanol intake, a major predictor for the development of alcohol use disorders, is facilitated by the development of tolerance to both the aversive and pleasurable effects of the drug. The molecular mechanisms underlying ethanol tolerance development are complex and are not yet well understood. METHODS: To identify genetic mechanisms that contribute to ethanol tolerance, we examined the time course of gene expression changes elicited by a single sedating dose of ethanol in Drosophila, and completed a behavioral survey of strains harboring mutations in ethanol-regulated genes. RESULTS: Enrichment for genes in metabolism, nucleic acid binding, olfaction, regulation of signal transduction, and stress suggests that these biological processes are coordinately affected by ethanol exposure. We also detected a coordinate up-regulation of genes in the Toll and Imd innate immunity signal transduction pathways. A multi-study comparison revealed a small set of genes showing similar regulation, including increased expression of 3 genes for serine biosynthesis. A survey of Drosophila strains harboring mutations in ethanol-regulated genes for ethanol sensitivity and tolerance phenotypes revealed roles for serine biosynthesis, olfaction, transcriptional regulation, immunity, and metabolism. Flies harboring deletions of the genes encoding the olfactory co-receptor Or83b or the sirtuin Sir2 showed marked changes in the development of ethanol tolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings implicate novel roles for these genes in regulating ethanol behavioral responses.
Transcriptional regulation is achieved through combinatorial interactions between regulatory elements in the human genome and a vast range of factors that modulate the recruitment and activity of RNA polymerase. Experimental approaches for studying transcription in vivo now extend from single-molecule techniques to genome-wide measurements. Parallel to these developments is the need for testable quantitative and predictive models for understanding gene regulation. These conceptual models must also provide insight into the dynamics of transcription and the variability that is observed at the single-cell level. In this Review, we discuss recent results on transcriptional regulation and also the models those results engender. We show how a non-equilibrium description informs our view of transcription by explicitly considering time- and energy-dependence at the molecular level.
Genetically encoded optical indicators hold the promise of enabling non-invasive monitoring of activity in identified neurons in behaving organisms. However, the interpretation of images of brain activity produced using such sensors is not straightforward. Several recent studies of sensory coding used G-CaMP 1.3-a calcium sensor-as an indicator of neural activity; some of these studies characterized the imaged neurons as having narrow tuning curves, a conclusion not always supported by parallel electrophysiological studies. To better understand the possible cause of these conflicting results, we performed simultaneous in vivo 2-photon imaging and electrophysiological recording of G-CaMP 1.3 expressing neurons in the antennal lobe (AL) of intact fruitflies. We find that G-CaMP has a relatively high threshold, that its signal often fails to capture spiking response kinetics, and that it can miss even high instantaneous rates of activity if those are not sustained. While G-CaMP can be misleading, it is clearly useful for the identification of promising neural targets: when electrical activity is well above the sensor’s detection threshold, its signal is fairly well correlated with mean firing rate and G-CaMP does not appear to alter significantly the responses of neurons that express it. The methods we present should enable any genetically encoded sensor, activator, or silencer to be evaluated in an intact neural circuit in vivo in Drosophila.
Neuron models, in particular conductance-based compartmental models, often have numerous parameters that cannot be directly determined experimentally and must be constrained by an optimization procedure. A common practice in evaluating the utility of such procedures is using a previously developed model to generate surrogate data (e.g., traces of spikes following step current pulses) and then challenging the algorithm to recover the original parameters (e.g., the value of maximal ion channel conductances) that were used to generate the data. In this fashion, the success or failure of the model fitting procedure to find the original parameters can be easily determined. Here we show that some model fitting procedures that provide an excellent fit in the case of such model-to-model comparisons provide ill-balanced results when applied to experimental data. The main reason is that surrogate and experimental data test different aspects of the algorithm’s function. When considering model-generated surrogate data, the algorithm is required to locate a perfect solution that is known to exist. In contrast, when considering experimental target data, there is no guarantee that a perfect solution is part of the search space. In this case, the optimization procedure must rank all imperfect approximations and ultimately select the best approximation. This aspect is not tested at all when considering surrogate data since at least one perfect solution is known to exist (the original parameters) making all approximations unnecessary. Furthermore, we demonstrate that distance functions based on extracting a set of features from the target data (such as time-to-first-spike, spike width, spike frequency, etc.)–rather than using the original data (e.g., the whole spike trace) as the target for fitting-are capable of finding imperfect solutions that are good approximations of the experimental data.
Success in the projects aimed at providing an advanced understanding of the brain is directly predicated on making critical advances in nanotechnology. This Perspective addresses the unique interface of neuroscience and nanomaterials by considering the foundational problem of sensing neuron membrane voltage and offers a potential solution that may be facilitated by a prototypical nanomaterial. Despite substantial improvements, the visualization of instantaneous voltage changes within individual neurons, whether in cell culture or in vivo, at both the single-cell and network level at high speed remains complex and problematic. The unique properties of semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) have made them powerful fluorophores for bioimaging. What is not widely appreciated, however, is that QD photoluminescence is exquisitely sensitive to proximal electric fields. This property should be suitable for sensing voltage changes that occur in the active neuronal membrane. Here, we examine the potential role of QDs in addressing the important challenge of real-time optical voltage imaging.
Genetically encoded Ca indicators (GECIs) enable long-term monitoring of cellular and subcellular dynamics of this second messenger in response to environmental and developmental cues without relying on exogenous dyes. Continued development and optimization in GECIs, combined with advances in gene manipulation, offer new opportunities for investigating the mechanism of Ca signaling in fungi, ranging from documenting Ca signatures under diverse conditions and genetic backgrounds to evaluating how changes in Ca signature impact calcium-binding proteins and subsequent cellular changes. Here, we attempted to express multi-color (green, yellow, blue, cyan, and red) circularly permuted fluorescent protein (FP)-based Ca indicators driven by multiple fungal promoters in Fusarium oxysporum, F. graminearum, and Neurospora crassa. Several variants were successfully expressed, with GCaMP5G driven by the Magnaporthe oryzae ribosomal protein 27 (P) and F. verticillioides elongation factor-1α (P) gene promoters being optimal for F. graminearum and F. oxysporum, respectively. Transformants expressing GCaMP5G were compared with those expressing YC3.60, a ratiometric Cameleon Ca indicator. Wild-type and three Ca signaling mutants of F. graminearum expressing GCaMP5G exhibited improved signal-to-noise and increased temporal and spatial resolution and are also more amenable to studies involving multiple FPs compared to strains expressing YC3.60.
The K2 Summit camera was initially the only commercially available direct electron detection camera that was optimized for high-speed counting of primary electrons and was also the only one that implemented centroiding so that the resolution of the camera can be extended beyond the Nyquist limit set by the physical pixel size. In this study, we used well-characterized two-dimensional crystals of the membrane protein aquaporin-0 to characterize the performance of the camera below and beyond the physical Nyquist limit and to measure the influence of electron dose rate on image amplitudes and phases.
The efficient cytosolic delivery of proteins is critical for advancing novel therapeutic strategies. Current delivery methods are severely limited by endosomal entrapment, and detection methods lack sophistication in tracking the fate of delivered protein cargo. HaloTag, a commonly used protein in chemical biology and a challenging delivery target, is an exceptional model system for understanding and exploiting cellular delivery. Here, we employed a combinatorial strategy to direct HaloTag to the cytosol. We established the use of Virginia Orange, a pH-sensitive fluorophore, and Janelia Fluor 585, a similar but pH-agnostic fluorophore, in a fluorogenic assay to ascertain protein localization within human cells. Using this assay, we investigated HaloTag delivery upon modification with cell-penetrating peptides, carboxyl group esterification, and cotreatment with an endosomolytic agent. We found efficacious cytosolic entry with two distinct delivery methods. This study expands the toolkit for detecting the cytosolic access of proteins and highlights that multiple intracellular delivery strategies can be used synergistically to effect cytosolic access. Moreover, HaloTag is poised to serve as a platform for the delivery of varied cargo into human cells.
Efficient hydrolysis of amide bonds has long been a reaction of interest for organic chemists. The rate constants of proteases are unmatched by those of any synthetic catalyst. It has been proposed that a dipeptide containing serine and histidine is an effective catalyst of amide hydrolysis, based on an apparent ability to degrade a protein. The capacity of the Ser-His dipeptide to catalyze the hydrolysis of several discrete ester and amide substrates is investigated using previously described conditions. This dipeptide does not catalyze the hydrolysis of amide or unactivated ester groups in any of the substrates under the conditions evaluated.