Abstract

Genetically encoded calcium indicators (GECIs) allow measurement of activity in large populations of neurons and in small neuronal compartments, over times of milliseconds to months. Although GFP-based GECIs are widely used for in vivo neurophysiology, GECIs with red-shifted excitation and emission spectra have advantages for in vivo imaging because of reduced scattering and absorption in tissue, and a consequent reduction in phototoxicity. However, current red GECIs are inferior to the state-of-the-art GFP-based GCaMP6 indicators for detecting and quantifying neural activity. Here we present improved red GECIs based on mRuby (jRCaMP1a, b) and mApple (jRGECO1a), with sensitivity comparable to GCaMP6. We characterized the performance of the new red GECIs in cultured neurons and in mouse, Drosophila, zebrafish and C. elegans in vivo. Red GECIs facilitate deep-tissue imaging, dual-color imaging together with GFP-based reporters, and the use of optogenetics in combination with calcium imaging.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hod Dana

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Boaz Mohar

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Yi Sun

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Sujatha Narayan

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Andrew Gordus

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The Rockefeller University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Jeremy P Hasseman

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Getahun Tsegaye

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Graham T Holt

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Amy Hu

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Deepika Walpita

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Ronak Patel

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. John J Macklin

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Cornelia I Bargmann

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The Rockefeller University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Misha B Ahrens

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Eric R Schreiter

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Vivek Jayaraman

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Loren L Looger

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Karel Svoboda

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Douglas S Kim

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    For correspondence
    kimd@janelia.hhmi.org
    Competing interests
    Douglas S Kim, The authors have applied for a patent on materials and methods related to the red GECI variants (application number US 14/974,483).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Michael Häusser, University College London, United Kingdom

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental protocols were conducted according to NationalInstitutes of Health guidelines for animal research and were approved bythe Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Janelia ResearchCampus (protocol 13-95).

Version history

  1. Received: November 1, 2015
  2. Accepted: March 24, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 24, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 26, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Dana et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 47,189
    views
  • 8,242
    downloads
  • 754
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Hod Dana
  2. Boaz Mohar
  3. Yi Sun
  4. Sujatha Narayan
  5. Andrew Gordus
  6. Jeremy P Hasseman
  7. Getahun Tsegaye
  8. Graham T Holt
  9. Amy Hu
  10. Deepika Walpita
  11. Ronak Patel
  12. John J Macklin
  13. Cornelia I Bargmann
  14. Misha B Ahrens
  15. Eric R Schreiter
  16. Vivek Jayaraman
  17. Loren L Looger
  18. Karel Svoboda
  19. Douglas S Kim
(2016)
Sensitive red protein calcium indicators for imaging neural activity
eLife 5:e12727.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12727

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12727

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ivan Tomić, Paul M Bays
    Research Article

    Probing memory of a complex visual image within a few hundred milliseconds after its disappearance reveals significantly greater fidelity of recall than if the probe is delayed by as little as a second. Classically interpreted, the former taps into a detailed but rapidly decaying visual sensory or ‘iconic’ memory (IM), while the latter relies on capacity-limited but comparatively stable visual working memory (VWM). While iconic decay and VWM capacity have been extensively studied independently, currently no single framework quantitatively accounts for the dynamics of memory fidelity over these time scales. Here, we extend a stationary neural population model of VWM with a temporal dimension, incorporating rapid sensory-driven accumulation of activity encoding each visual feature in memory, and a slower accumulation of internal error that causes memorized features to randomly drift over time. Instead of facilitating read-out from an independent sensory store, an early cue benefits recall by lifting the effective limit on VWM signal strength imposed when multiple items compete for representation, allowing memory for the cued item to be supplemented with information from the decaying sensory trace. Empirical measurements of human recall dynamics validate these predictions while excluding alternative model architectures. A key conclusion is that differences in capacity classically thought to distinguish IM and VWM are in fact contingent upon a single resource-limited WM store.

    1. Neuroscience
    Emilio Salinas, Bashirul I Sheikh
    Insight

    Our ability to recall details from a remembered image depends on a single mechanism that is engaged from the very moment the image disappears from view.