1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Sensitive red protein calcium indicators for imaging neural activity

  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  Is a corresponding author
  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The Rockefeller University, United States
Tools and Resources
  • Cited 324
  • Views 31,872
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e12727 doi: 10.7554/eLife.12727

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).

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).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Michael Häusser, University College London, United Kingdom

Publication 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

  • 31,872
    Page views
  • 6,662
    Downloads
  • 324
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Caroline S Lee et al.
    Research Article

    Learning about temporal structure is adaptive because it enables the generation of expectations. We examined how the brain uses experience in structured environments to anticipate upcoming events. During fMRI, individuals watched a 90-second movie clip six times. Using a Hidden Markov Model applied to searchlights across the whole brain, we identified temporal shifts between activity patterns evoked by the first vs. repeated viewings of the movie clip. In many regions throughout the cortex, neural activity patterns for repeated viewings shifted to precede those of initial viewing by up to 15 seconds. This anticipation varied hierarchically in a posterior (less anticipation) to anterior (more anticipation) fashion. We also identified specific regions in which the timing of the brain's event boundaries were related to those of human-labeled event boundaries, with the timing of this relationship shifting on repeated viewings. With repeated viewing, the brain's event boundaries came to precede human-annotated boundaries by 1-4 seconds on average. Together, these results demonstrate a hierarchy of anticipatory signals in the human brain and link them to subjective experiences of events.

    1. Neuroscience
    Hamid Karimi-Rouzbahani et al.
    Research Article Updated

    There are many monitoring environments, such as railway control, in which lapses of attention can have tragic consequences. Problematically, sustained monitoring for rare targets is difficult, with more misses and longer reaction times over time. What changes in the brain underpin these ‘vigilance decrements’? We designed a multiple-object monitoring (MOM) paradigm to examine how the neural representation of information varied with target frequency and time performing the task. Behavioural performance decreased over time for the rare target (monitoring) condition, but not for a frequent target (active) condition. This was mirrored in neural decoding using magnetoencephalography: coding of critical information declined more during monitoring versus active conditions along the experiment. We developed new analyses that can predict behavioural errors from the neural data more than a second before they occurred. This facilitates pre-empting behavioural errors due to lapses in attention and provides new insight into the neural correlates of vigilance decrements.