All living cells are like tiny batteries. As long as a cell is alive, it actively maintains a difference in electrical charge between its interior and exterior. This charge difference, or voltage, is called the membrane potential, and it is vital for our bodies to work properly. For example, fast changes in membrane potential control our heartbeat and underpin the electrical signals that brain cells use to communicate.

Slower changes in membrane potential – ranging from minutes to days – may also play important roles in other organs. To understand how and why membrane potential is important in these contexts, we need methods to measure it accurately in individual cells.

One way is to puncture cells with microscopic electrodes: this yields accurate results but damages the cells and can only measure one cell at a time. Alternative methods treat cells with special fluorescent dyes and then image them with a microscope. The dyes emit light in response to voltage variations: when the cells’ membrane potential changes, the dyes glow brighter. The changes in light intensity give an estimate of the size of the change in membrane potential. This allows many cells to be analyzed without harming them, but it is less accurate.

Fluorescence lifetime refers to how long fluorescent dyes take to finish emitting light, and this phenomenon has already helped researchers to record a variety of processes in the cell. Lazzari-Dean et al. therefore wanted to use fluorescence lifetime to develop a better way of recording membrane potential. This method, called VF-FLIM, relied on measuring how long certain dyes took to finish emitting light at specific voltages, rather than how bright they were.

Experiments using mammalian cells grown in the laboratory showed that the membrane potentials measured with VF-FLIM were similar to those recorded with electrodes, which represent the highest standard of accuracy. The new method was at least eight times more accurate than other techniques using fluorescent dyes. VF-FLIM could also measure many thousands of cells within a few hours, a hundred times faster than electrode-based methods. Finally, tests on human cancer cells revealed that VF-FLIM could detect that these cells go through gradual changes in membrane potential in response to growth signals.

VF-FLIM is a new, non-invasive tool that can measure changes in membrane potential more quickly and accurately. This will help to better understand the many roles membrane potential could play in healthy and diseased cells.

Membrane potential (V_mem) is an essential facet of cellular physiology. In electrically excitable cells, such as neurons and cardiomyocytes, voltage-gated ion channels enable rapid changes in membrane potential. These fast membrane potential changes, on the order of milliseconds to seconds, trigger release of neurotransmitters in neurons or contraction in myocytes. The resting membrane potentials of these cells, which change over longer timescales, affect their excitability. In non-electrically excitable cells, slower changes in V_mem—on the order of seconds to hours—are linked to a variety of fundamental cellular processes (Abdul Kadir et al., 2018), including mitosis (Cone and Cone, 1976), cell cycle progression (Huang and Jan, 2014), and differentiation (Tsuchiya and Okada, 1982). Mounting lines of evidence point to the importance of electrochemical gradients in development, body patterning, and regeneration (Levin, 2014).

Despite the importance of membrane potential to diverse processes over a range of time scales, the existing methods for recording V_mem are inadequate for characterizing distributions of V_mem states in a sample or studying gradual shifts in resting membrane potential (Figure 1—source data 1). Patch clamp electrophysiology remains the gold standard for recording cellular electrical parameters, but it is low throughput, highly invasive, and difficult to implement over extended time periods. Where reduced invasiveness or higher throughput analyses of V_mem are required, optical methods for detecting events involving V_mem changes (e.g. whether an action potential occurred) are often employed (Huang et al., 2006; McKeithan et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016). However, optical approaches generally use fluorescence intensity values as a readout, which cannot report either the value of V_mem in millivolts (‘absolute V_mem’) or the millivolt amount by which V_mem changed (Peterka et al., 2011). Variations in dye environment (Ross and Reichardt, 1979), dye loading, illumination intensity, fluorophore bleaching, and/or cellular morphology complicate fluorescence intensity measurements, making calibration and determination of absolute membrane potential difficult or impossible. This limitation restricts optical analysis to detection of acute V_mem changes, which can be analyzed without comparisons of V_mem between cells or over long timescales.

One strategy to address these fluorescence intensity artifacts and quantify cellular parameters optically is ratio-based imaging. For V_mem specifically, ratio-based signals can be accessed either with a two-component system or with an electrochromic voltage sensitive dye, but neither strategy has enabled accurate absolute V_mem recordings. Two-component FRET-oxonol systems, with independent chromophores for ratio-based calibration, have seen limited success (González and Tsien, 1997), and they confer significant capacitive load on the cell (Briggman et al., 2010). Further, their performance hinges on carefully tuned loading procedures of multiple lipophilic indicators (Adams and Levin, 2012), which can be challenging to reproduce across different samples and days. On the other hand, electrochromic probes report voltage as changes in excitation and emission wavelengths of a single chromophore (Loew et al., 1979). While they benefit from simpler loading procedures, signals from electrochromic styryl dyes require normalization with an electrode on each cell of interest to determine absolute V_mem accurately (Montana et al., 1989; Zhang et al., 1998; Bullen and Saggau, 1999). As a result, ratiometric V_mem sensors cannot be used to optically quantify slow signals in the resting V_mem, which may be on the order of tens of millivolts. Indeed, ratiometric V_mem probes are most commonly applied to detect - rather than quantify - fast changes in V_mem (Zhang et al., 1998), much like their single wavelength counterparts.

An alternative approach to improved quantification in optical measurements is fluorescence lifetime (τ_fl) imaging (FLIM), which measures the excited state lifetime of a population of fluorophores. Because fluorescence lifetime is an intrinsic property, FLIM can avoid many of the artifacts that confound extrinsic fluorescence intensity measurements, such as uneven dye loading, fluorophore bleaching, variations in illumination intensity, and detector sensitivity (Berezin and Achilefu, 2010; Yellen and Mongeon, 2015). If a fluorescent probe responds to the analyte of interest via changes in the lifetime of its excited state, there is the opportunity to use fluorescence lifetime to provide a more quantitative estimate of analyte parameters than can be achieved with fluorescence intensity alone. Although FLIM measurements can be affected by environmental factors such as temperature, ionic strength and local environment (Berezin and Achilefu, 2010), FLIM has been widely employed to record a number of biochemical and biophysical parameters, including intracellular Ca²⁺ concentration (Zheng et al., 2015), viscosity (Levitt et al., 2009), GTPase activity (Harvey et al., 2008), kinase activity (Lee et al., 2009), and redox state (NADH/NAD⁺ ratio) (Blacker and Duchen, 2016), among others (Yellen and Mongeon, 2015). Attempts to record absolute voltage with FLIM, however, have been limited in success (Dumas and Stoltz, 2005; Hou et al., 2014; Brinks et al., 2015). Previous work focused on genetically encoded voltage indicators (GEVIs), which either possess complex relationships between τ_fl and voltage (Hou et al., 2014) or show low sensitivity to voltage in lifetime (Brinks et al., 2015) and require complex and technically challenging measurements of fast photochemical kinetics to estimate voltage (Hou et al., 2014). Because of this poor voltage resolution, the fluorescence lifetimes of GEVIs cannot be used to detect most biologically relevant voltage changes, which are on the order of tens of millivolts.

Fluorescent voltage indicators that use photoinduced electron transfer (PeT) as a voltage-sensing mechanism are promising candidates for a FLIM-based approach to optical V_mem quantification. Because PeT affects the nonradiative decay rate of the fluorophore excited state, it has been successfully translated from intensity to τ_fl imaging with a number of small molecule probes for Ca²⁺ (Lakowicz et al., 1992). We previously established that VoltageFluor (VF)-type dyes transduce changes in cellular membrane potential to changes in fluorescence intensity and that the voltage response of VF dyes is consistent with a PeT-based response mechanism (Miller et al., 2012; Woodford et al., 2015). Changes in the transmembrane potential alter the rate of PeT (Li, 2007; de Silva et al., 1995) from an electron-rich aniline donor to a fluorescent reporter, thereby modulating the fluorescence intensity of VF dyes (Miller et al., 2012) (Figure 1A,B). VoltageFluors also display low toxicity and rapid, linear responses to voltage.

Figure 1 with 5 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 1—source data 1

Comparison of available approaches for measuring membrane potential in cells.

^aMeasurements vary too much to be converted to absolute voltage or interpreted across populations of cells. This variability is attributable to numerous confounding factors, including dye loading, photobleaching, and sample movement (Peterka et al., 2011). ^bWhile in principle less variable than a single-color fluorescence intensity measurement, in practice, the signal depends strongly on the loading of two independent lipophilic indicators (Adams and Levin, 2012; Maher et al., 2007), which can vary substantially. ^cANEPPS excitation ratios depend on a variety of non-voltage factors, in particular the membrane composition, leading to substantial artifacts in optical V_mem determinations (Zhang et al., 1998; Gross et al., 1994). ^dWith the GEVI CAESR in our hands, apparently poor protein trafficking produces large amounts of non-voltage-sensitive signal, which contaminates the FLIM recording and contributes to high cell to cell variability (Figure 1—figure supplement 4, Materials and methods). ^ePatch-clamp electrophysiology requires physical contact with the cell of interest, which causes damage to the cell and, in whole cell configurations, washout of intracellular factors. Slight movement of the cell or sample generally result in loss of the patch. ^fMovement of the cell and photobleaching of the dye both cause large changes to the signal over seconds to minutes. ^gRatio-calibrated imaging approaches use a second signal (usually another color of fluorescence) to correct for differences in dye concentration or changes in the region of interest that contaminate single-color intensity signals. If the rate of photobleaching is the same for both components, photobleaching artifacts can also be avoided. ^hLimited by photon count rates. ⁱLimited by probe movement in the membrane, which depends mostly on lipophilicity (Briggman et al., 2010). ^jPhoton counting based lifetime imaging, like epifluorescence intensity imaging, is limited by photon count rates. Large numbers of photons per pixel must be collected to fit TCSPC FLIM data, often using a line scanning confocal approach, leading to slower acquisition speeds than epifluorescence-based intensity imaging. ^kToxicity from capacitive load of the sensor (Briggman et al., 2010). ^lThe spatial resolution of electrophysiology is compromised by space clamp error, preventing interpretation of V_mem in regions far from the electrode (e.g. many neuronal processes) (Williams and Mitchell, 2008; 35,36). ^mAs demonstrated by Cohen and co-workers (Brinks et al., 2015); in our hands with CAESR, we also experienced significant improvements in voltage resolution by fitting a single curve per FLIM image instead of processing the images pixel-wise (see Materials and methods) ⁿIn this work, we calibrated VF-FLIM for V_mem measurements with single cell resolution. In principle, subcellular spatial resolution could be achieved with the VF-FLIM technique.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.44522.008

Download elife-44522-fig1-data1-v2.docx

Figure 1—source data 2

Properties of lifetime standards and VoltageFluor dyes.

Fluorescein and erythrosin B standards were measured in drops of solution placed on a coverslip. For VF dyes, voltage sensitivities from intensity-based fluorescence imaging in HEK293T cells (%ΔF/F, percent change in fluorescence intensity for a voltage step from −60 mV to +40 mV) are from previously published work (Woodford et al., 2015). Lifetime data were obtained from voltage-clamp electrophysiology of HEK293T cells loaded with 100 nM VF. Lifetime listed here is the average 0 mV lifetime from the electrophysiology calibration. % Δτ/τ is the percent change in lifetime corresponding to a 100 mV step from −60 mV to +40 mV. Lifetime sample sizes: fluorescein 25, erythrosin B 25, VF2.1.Cl 17, VF2.0.Cl 17. For lifetime standards, each measurement was taken on a separate day. VF2.1.Cl data in HEK293T is duplicated in Figure 2—source data 1. Values are tabulated as mean ± SEM.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.44522.009

Download elife-44522-fig1-data2-v2.docx

Figure 1—source data 3

Comparison of optical approaches to absolute V_mem determination in HEK293T cells.

Data are compiled from Figure 1 (VF-FLIM, this work), Figure 1—figure supplement 4 (CAESR; Brinks et al., 2015), and Figure 1—figure supplement 5 (Di-8-ANEPPS; Zhang et al., 1998). All data were obtained by simultaneous whole cell voltage clamp electrophysiology and optical recording in HEK293T (VF-FLIM n = 17 cells, CAESR n = 9, di-8-ANEPPS n = 16). Calculation of intra and inter cell accuracies are performed via root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) and discussed in detail in the Methods (see Resolution of VF-FLIM…). Regions of interest were chosen at the plasma membrane in all cases. Di-8-ANEPPS data are presented as the ratio of signal obtained with blue excitation to signal obtained with green excitation (R, see Materials and methods) and are not normalized to the 0 mV R.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.44522.010

Download elife-44522-fig1-data3-v2.docx

Here, we develop fluorescence lifetime imaging of VoltageFluor dyes (VF-FLIM) as a quantitative, all-optical approach for recording absolute membrane potential with single cell resolution. Using patch-clamp electrophysiology as a standard, we demonstrate that VF-FLIM reports absolute membrane potential in single trials with 10 to 23 mV accuracy (root mean square deviation, RMSD; 15 s acquisition), depending on the cell line. In all cases tested, VF-FLIM tracks membrane potential changes with better than 5 mV accuracy (RMSD). We benchmark VF-FLIM against previously reported optical absolute V_mem recording approaches and demonstrate resolution improvements of 8-fold over ratiometric strategies and 19-fold over other lifetime-based strategies. To highlight the increased throughput relative to manual patch-clamp electrophysiology, we document resting membrane potentials of thousands of cells. To our knowledge, this work represents the first broad view of the distribution of resting membrane potentials present in situ. VF-FLIM is limited to acquisition speeds on the order of seconds, but it is well-suited for studying gradual V_mem dynamics. Using VF-FLIM, we quantify and track the evolution of a 10–15 mV V_mem hyperpolarization over minutes following epidermal growth factor (EGF) stimulation of human carcinoma cells. Through pharmacological perturbations, we conclude that the voltage changes following EGF stimulation arise from activation of the calcium-activated potassium channel K_Ca3.1. Our results show that fluorescence lifetime of VF dyes is a generalizable and effective approach for studying resting membrane potential in a range of cell lines (Lakowicz et al., 1992).

We report the design and implementation of a new method for optically quantifying absolute membrane potential in living cells. VF-FLIM enjoys 100-fold improved throughput over patch clamp electrophysiology, as well as improved spatial resolution. The performance of VF-FLIM hinges on a balance between resolution in three dimensions: membrane potential, space, and time. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of VF-FLIM in this light, as well as the new application space that is made accessible by VF-FLIM.

VoltageFluor (VF) dyes VF2.1.Cl and VF2.0.Cl were synthesized in house according to previously described syntheses (Woodford et al., 2015). VFs were stored either as solids at room temperature or as 1000x DMSO stocks at −20°C. VF stock concentrations were normalized to the absorption of the dichlorofluorescein dye head via UV-Vis spectroscopy in Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline (dPBS, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) pH 9 with 0.1% sodium dodecyl sulfate (w/v, SDS). Di-8-ANEPPS was purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Di-8-ANEPPS was prepared as a 2 mM (2000x) stock solution in DMSO and stored at −20°C. Di-8-ANEPPS concentrations were determined via UV-Vis spectroscopy in methanol (ε at 498 nm: 41,000 cm⁻¹ M⁻¹ according to the manufacturer’s certificate of analysis).

All salts and buffers were purchased from either Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO) or Fisher Scientific. TRAM-34, 4-aminopyridine, and charybdotoxin were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Gefitinib, wortmannin, sodium orthovanadate, and BAPTA-AM were purchased from Fisher Scientific. Canertinib was a gift from the Kuriyan laboratory at UC Berkeley. Gefitinib, wortmannin, canertinib, and TRAM-34 were made up as 1000x-10000x stock solutions in DMSO and stored at −20°C. Charybdotoxin was made up as a 1000x solution in water and stored at −80°C. 4-aminopyridine was made up as a 20x stock in imaging buffer (HBSS) and stored at 4°C. Recombinantly expressed epidermal growth factor was purchased from PeproTech (Rocky Hill, NJ) and aliquoted as a 1 mg/mL solution in water at −80°C.

Solid sodium orthovanadate was dissolved in water and activated before use (Gordon, 1991). Briefly, orthovanadate solutions were repeatedly boiled and adjusted to pH 10 until the solution was clear and colorless. 200 mM activated orthovanadate stocks were aliquoted and stored at −20°C.

Unless otherwise noted, all imaging experiments were performed in Hank’s Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS; Gibco/Thermo Fisher Scientific). HBSS composition in mM: 137.9 NaCl, 5.3 KCl, 5.6 D-glucose, 4.2 NaHCO₃, 1.3 CaCl₂, 0.49 MgCl₂, 0.44 KH₂PO₄, 0.41 MgSO₄, 0.34 Na₂HPO₄. High K⁺ HBSS was made in-house to 285 mOsmol and pH 7.3, containing (in mM): 120 KCl, 23.3 NaCl, 5.6 D-glucose, 4.2 NaHCO₃, 1.3 CaCl₂, 0.49 MgCl₂, 0.44 KH₂PO₄, 0.41 MgSO₄, 0.34 Na₂HPO₄. Nominally Ca²⁺/Mg²⁺ free HBSS (Gibco) contained, in mM: 137.9 NaCl, 5.3 KCl, 5.6 D-glucose, 4.2 NaHCO₃, 0.44 KH₂PO₄, 0.34 Na₂HPO₄.

Methods

Cell culture

Request a detailed protocol

All cell lines were obtained from the UC Berkeley Cell Culture Facility and discarded after twenty-five passages. A431, HEK293T, MCF-7, and MDA-MB-231 cells were authenticated by short tandem repeat (STR) profiling. All cells were routinely tested for mycoplasma contamination. Cells were maintained in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) with 4.5 g/L D-glucose supplemented with 10% FBS (Seradigm (VWR); Radnor, PA) and 2 mM GlutaMAX (Gibco) in a 5% CO₂ incubator at 37°C. Media for MCF-7 cells was supplemented with 1 mM sodium pyruvate (Life Technologies/Thermo Fisher Scientific) and 1x non-essential amino acids (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Media for CHO.K1 (referred to as CHO throughout the text) cells was supplemented with 1x non-essential amino acids. HEK293T and MDA-MB-231 were dissociated with 0.05% Trypsin-EDTA with phenol red (Thermo Fisher Scientific) at 37°C, whereas A431, CHO, and MCF-7 cells were dissociated with 0.25% Trypsin-EDTA with phenol red at 37°C. To avoid potential toxicity of residual trypsin, all cells except for HEK293T were spun down at 250xg or 500xg for 5 min and re-suspended in fresh complete media during passaging.

For use in imaging experiments, cells were plated onto 25 mm diameter poly-D-lysine coated #1.5 glass coverslips (Electron Microscopy Sciences) in six well tissue culture plates (Corning; Corning, NY). To maximize cell attachment, coverslips were treated before use with 1–2 M HCl for 2–5 hr and washed overnight three times with 100% ethanol and three times with deionized water. Coverslips were sterilized by heating to 150°C for 2–3 hr. Before use, coverslips were incubated with poly-D-lysine (Sigma-Aldrich, made as a 0.1 mg/mL solution in phosphate-buffered saline with 10 mM Na₃BO₄) for 1–10 hr at 37°C and then washed twice with water and twice with Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline (dPBS, Gibco).

A431, CHO, HEK293T, and MCF-7 were seeded onto glass coverslips 16–24 hr before microscopy experiments. MDA-MB-231 cells were seeded 48 hr before use because it facilitated formation of gigaseals during whole-cell voltage clamp electrophysiology. Cell densities used for optical resting membrane potential recordings (in 10³ cells per cm²) were: A431 42; CHO 42; HEK293T 42; MCF-7 63; MDA-MB-231 42. To ensure the presence of single cells for whole-cell voltage clamp electrophysiology, fast-growing cells were plated more sparsely (approximately 20% confluence) for electrophysiology experiments. Cell densities used for electrophysiology (in 10³ cells per cm²) were: A431 36–52; CHO 21; HEK293T 21; MCF-7 63; MDA-MB-231 42. To reduce their rapid growth rate, HEK293T cells were seeded onto glass coverslips in reduced glucose (1 g/L) DMEM with 10% FBS, 2 mM GlutaMAX, and 1 mM sodium pyruvate for electrophysiology experiments.

Cellular loading of VoltageFluor dyes

Request a detailed protocol

Cells were loaded with 1x VoltageFluor in HBSS for 20 min in a 37°C incubator with 5% CO₂. For most experiments, 100 nM VoltageFluor was used. Serum-starved A431 cells were loaded with 50 nM VoltageFluor. After VF loading, cells were washed once with HBSS and then placed in fresh HBSS for imaging. All imaging experiments were conducted at room temperature under ambient atmosphere. Cells were used immediately after loading the VF dye, and no cells were kept for longer than an hour at room temperature.

Whole-cell patch-clamp electrophysiology

Request a detailed protocol

Pipettes were pulled from borosilicate glass with filament (Sutter Instruments, Novato, CA) with resistances ranging from 4 to 7 MΩ with a P97 pipette puller (Sutter Instruments). Internal solution composition, in mM (pH 7.25, 285 mOsmol/L): 125 potassium gluconate, 10 KCl, 5 NaCl, 1 EGTA, 10 HEPES, 2 ATP sodium salt, 0.3 GTP sodium salt. EGTA (tetraacid form) was prepared as a stock solution in either 1 M KOH or 10 M NaOH before addition to the internal solution. Pipettes were positioned with an MP-225 micromanipulator (Sutter Instruments). A liquid junction potential of −14 mV was determined by the Liquid Junction Potential Calculator in the pClamp software package (Barry, 1994) (Molecular Devices, San Jose, CA), and all voltage step protocols were corrected for this offset.

For VF-FLIM and CAESR, electrophysiology recordings for VF-FLIM and CAESR were made with an Axopatch 200B amplifier and digitized with a Digidata 1440A (Molecular Devices). The software package used was pClamp 10.3. Signals were filtered with a 5 kHz low-pass Bessel filter. Correction for pipette capacitance was performed in the cell attached configuration. Voltage-lifetime calibrations were performed in V-clamp mode, with the cell held at the potential of interest for 15 or 30 s while lifetime was recorded. Potentials were applied in random order, and membrane test was conducted between each step to verify the quality of the patch. For single cell patching, recordings were only included if they maintained a 30:1 ratio of membrane resistance (R_m) to access resistance (R_a) and an R_a value below 30 MΩ throughout the recording. Due to the reduced health of HEK293T cells transfected with CAESR, recordings were used as long as they maintained a 10:1 R_m:R_a ratio, although most recordings were better than 30:1 R_m:R_a. Only recordings stable for at least four voltage steps (roughly 2 min) were included in the dataset.

For di-8-ANEPPS, electrophysiology recordings were made in the same manner as the above, with the following minor differences. Signals were digitized with a Digidata 1550B; the pClamp 10.6 software package was used (Molecular Devices). Potentials were applied in the order 0 mV, −80 mV, +40 mV, −40 mV, +80 mV for ten seconds at each step. Patch parameters were tested at the beginning and end of the patch program, rather than between each step. Only patches that retained a 30:1 ratio of Rm to Ra and access resistance below 30 MΩ throughout the recording were included in the dataset.

For electrophysiology involving small groups of cells (Figure 2—figure supplement 3), complete voltage clamp across the entire cell group was not possible. Recordings were used as long as R_a remained below 30 MΩ for at least three voltage steps. Most recordings also retained R_m:R_a ratios greater than 20:1.

Epidermal growth factor treatment

Request a detailed protocol

A431 cells were serum starved prior to epidermal growth factor studies. Two days before the experiment, cells were trypsizined and suspended in complete media with 10% FBS. Cells were then spun down for 5 min at 500xg and re-suspended in reduced serum DMEM (2% FBS, 2 mM GlutaMAX, 4.5 g/L glucose). Cells were seeded onto 25 mm coverslips in six well plates at a density of 84 × 10³ cells per cm². 4–5.5 hr before the experiment, the media was exchanged for serum-free DMEM (0% FBS, 2 mM GlutaMAX, 4.5 g/L glucose).

After 4–5.5 hr in serum-free media, cells were loaded with 50 nM VF dye as described above. In pharmacology experiments, the drug or vehicle was also added to the VF dye loading solution. All subsequent wash and imaging solutions also contained the drug or vehicle. For changes to buffer ionic composition, VoltageFluor dyes were loaded in unmodified HBSS to avoid toxicity from prolonged incubation with high K⁺ or without Ca²⁺. Immediately prior to use, cells were washed in the modified HBSS (120 mM K⁺ or 0 mM Ca²⁺) and recordings were made in the modified HBSS.

For analysis of short-term responses to EGF (3 min time series), VF lifetime was recorded in 6 sequential 30 s exposures. Immediately after the conclusion of the first frame (30–35 s into the recording), EGF or vehicle (imaging buffer only) was added to the indicated final concentration from a 2x solution in HBSS imaging buffer. For analysis of long-term responses to EGF (15 min time series), EGF addition occurred in the same way, but a gap of 150 s (without laser illumination) was allotted between each 30 s lifetime recording. Times given throughout the text correspond to the start of an exposure. Voltage changes at 2.5 min were calculated from the difference between an initial image (taken before imaging buffer vehicle or EGF addition) and a final image (a 30 s exposure starting 2.5 min into the time series).

Transfection and imaging of CAESR in HEK293T

Request a detailed protocol

The CAESR plasmid was obtained as an agar stab (FCK-Quasar2-Citrine, Addgene #59172), cultured overnight in LB with 100 μg/mL ampicillin, and isolated via a spin miniprep kit (Qiagen). HEK293T cells were plated at a density of 42,000 cells per cm²directly onto a six well tissue culture plate and incubated at 37°C in a humidified incubator for 24 hr prior to transfection. Transfections were performed with Lipofectamine 3000 according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Cells were allowed to grow an additional 24 hr after transfection before they were plated onto glass coverslips for microscopy experiments (as described above for electrophysiology of untransfected HEK293T cells).

Determination of EC₅₀ for EGF in A431 cells

Request a detailed protocol

Average voltage changes 2.5 min after addition of EGF to serum deprived A431 cells were determined at different EGF concentrations, and these means were fit to a four parameter logistic function in MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, MA).

Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz estimation of V_mem ranges in different imaging buffers

Request a detailed protocol

If intracellular and extracellular concentrations, as well as relative permeabilities, of all ionic species are known, the Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz (GHK) equation (Equation 1) can be used to calculate the resting membrane potential of a cell (Hodgkin and Katz, 1949). In practice, the intracellular ion concentrations [X]_in and relative permeabilities P_x are difficult to determine, so the GHK equation is not a substitute for direct measurement of V_mem. To obtain a range of reasonable V_mem values in systems where these concentrations and relative permeabilities are not known, we calculated possible V_mem using the ‘standard’ parameters derived from Hodgkin and Katz (1949), as well as a value above and a value below each ‘standard’ point. The values evaluated were the following: P_K 1; P_Na 0.01, 0.05, 0.2; P_Cl 0.2, 0.45, 0.9; [K⁺]_in 90, 150, 200 mM; [Na⁺]_in 5, 15, 50 mM; [Cl^-]_in 2, 10, 35 mM. Extracellular ion concentrations [X]_out were known (see Materials and methods). In Equation 1, R is the universal gas constant, T is the temperature (293 K for this experiment), and F is Faraday’s constant.

(1) $V_{mem}=\frac{RT}{F}ln\frac{P_K{\left[K^{+}\right]}_{out}+P_{Na}{\left[{Na}^{+}\right]}_{out}+P_{Cl}{\left[{Cl}^{-}\right]}_{in}}{P_K{\left[K^{+}\right]}_{in}+P_{Na}{\left[{Na}^{+}\right]}_{in}+P_{Cl}{\left[{Cl}^{-}\right]}_{out}}$

Fluorescence lifetime data acquisition

Request a detailed protocol

Fluorescence lifetime imaging was conducted on a LSM 510 inverted scanning confocal microscope (Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Germany) equipped with an SPC-150 or SPC-150N single photon counting card (Becker and Hickl GmbH, Berlin, Germany) (Scheme 1). 80 MHz pulsed excitation was supplied by a Ti:Sapphire laser (MaiTai HP; SpectraPhysics, Santa Clara, CA) tuned to 958 nm and frequency-doubled to 479 nm. The laser was cooled by a recirculating water chiller (Neslab KMC100). Excitation light was directed into the microscope with a series of silver mirrors (Thorlabs, Newton, NJ or Newport Corporation, Irvine, CA).

Scheme 1

Download asset Open asset

Excitation light power at the sample was controlled with a neutral density (ND) wheel and a polarizer (P) followed by a polarizing beamsplitter (BS). Light was titrated such that VoltageFluor lifetime did not drift during the experiment, no phototoxicity was visible, and photon pile-up was not visible on the detector. For recordings at high VoltageFluor concentrations (Figure 1—figure supplement 2, Figure 2—figure supplement 4), reduced power was used to avoid saturating the detector. For optical voltage determinations using 50 or 100 nM VoltageFluor, typical average power at the sample was 5 μW.

Fluorescence emission was collected through a 40x oil immersion objective (Zeiss) coated with immersion oil (Immersol 518F, Zeiss). Emitted photons were detected with a hybrid detector, HPM-100–40 (Becker and Hickl), based on a Hamamatsu R10467 GaAsP hybrid photomultiplier tube. Detector dark counts were kept below 1000 per second during acquisition. Emission light was collected through a 550/49 bandpass filter (Semrock, Rochester, NY) after passing through a 488 LP dichroic mirror (Zeiss). The reference photons for determination of photon arrival times were detected with a PHD-400-N high speed photodiode (Becker and Hickl). Data were acquired with 256 time bins in the analog-to-digital-converter and either 64 × 64 or 256 × 256 pixels of spatial resolution (see discussion of pixel size below).

Routine evaluation of the proper functioning of the lifetime recording setup was performed by measurement of three standards (Figure 1—source data 2): 2 μM fluorescein in 0.1 N NaOH, 1 mg/mL erythrosin B in water (pH 7), and the instrument response function (IRF). The IRF was determined from a solution of 500 μM fluorescein and 12.2 M sodium iodide in 0.1 N NaOH. Because of the high concentration of iodide quencher, the IRF solution has a lifetime shorter than the detector response time, allowing approximation of the instrument response function under identical excitation and emission conditions as data acquisition (Liu et al., 2014).

IRF deconvolution

Request a detailed protocol

Signal from photons detected in a TCSPC apparatus are convolved with the instrument response (IRF). IRFs can be approximated by the SPCImage fitting software, but consistency of lifetime fits on VF-FLIM datasets was improved by using a measured IRF. Measured IRFs were incorporated by the iterative reconvolution method using SPCImage analysis software (Becker, 2012).

VoltageFluor lifetime fitting model

Request a detailed protocol

All VoltageFluor lifetime data were fit using SPCImage (Becker and Hickl), which solves the nonlinear least squares problem using the Levenberg-Marquadt algorithm. VF2.1.Cl lifetime data were fit to a sum of two exponential decay components (Equation 2). Attempts to fit the VF2.1.Cl data with a single exponential decay (Equation 3) were unsatisfactory.

(2) $F\left(t\right)=a_1{e}^{\raisebox{1ex}{$-t$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{${\tau }_1$}\right.}+\mathrm{}{a}_2{e}^{\raisebox{1ex}{$-t$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{${\tau }_2$}\right.}$

The fluorescence lifetime of VF2.0.Cl was adequately described by a single exponential decay for almost all data (Equation 3). A second exponential component was necessary to fit data at VF2.0.Cl concentrations above 500 nM, likely attributable to the concentration-dependent decrease in lifetime that was observed high VF concentrations.

(3) $F\left(t\right)=a{e}^{\raisebox{1ex}{$-t$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$\tau $}\right.}$

For all data fit with the two component model, the weighted average of the two lifetimes, τ_m (Equation 4), was used in subsequent analysis.

(4) ${\tau }_m=\frac{a_1{\tau }_1+a_2{\tau }_2}{a_1+\mathrm{}{a}_2}$

All lifetime images are represented as an overlay of photon count (pixel intensity) and weighted average lifetime (pixel color) throughout the text (τ_m + PC, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Pixels with insufficient signal to fit a fluorescence decay are shown in black. The photon counts, as well as the lifetimes, in image sequences on the same set of cells are scaled across the same range.

Additional fit parameters for VoltageFluor lifetimes

Request a detailed protocol

Pixels with photon counts below 300 (VF2.1.Cl) or 150 (VF2.0.Cl) photons at the peak of the decay (time bin with the most signal) were omitted from analysis to ensure reproducible fits. Because the lifetime of VFs does not fully decay to baseline in a single 12.5 ns laser cycle, the incomplete multiexponentials fitting option was used, allowing the model to attribute some signal early in the decay to the previous laser cycle. Out of 256 time bins from the analog-to-digital converter (ADC), only data from time bins 23 to 240 were used in the final fit. The offset parameter (detector dark counts per ADC time bin per pixel) was set to zero. The number of iterations for the fit in SPCImage was increased to 20 to obtain converged fits. Shift between the IRF and the decay trace was fixed to 0.5 (in units of ADC time bins), which consistently gave lifetimes of standards erythrosin B (1 mg/mL in H₂O) (Boens et al., 2007) and fluorescein (2 μM in 0.1 N NaOH, H₂O) (Magde et al., 1999) closest to reported values (Figure 1—source data 2).

Acquisition time and effective pixel size in lifetime data

Request a detailed protocol

To obtain sufficient photons but keep excitation light power minimal, binning between neighboring pixels was employed during fitting. This procedure effectively takes the lifetime as a spatial moving average across the image by including adjacent pixels in the decay for a given pixel. To obtain larger photon counts, the confocal pinhole was set between 2.5 and 3.5 airy units, which corresponds to optical section thickness of approximately 2.5 µm.

Data type	Acquired pixel width (μm)	Binned pixel width (μm)	Acquisition time (s)	Img size (pixels)
Concentration Curve (Figure 1—figure supplement 2, Figure 2—figure supplement 4)	0.44	3.08	75–90	256 × 256
Vmem Distributions (Figure 3)	1.24	8.68	90–120	256 × 256
Electrophysiology Recording	1.00	3.01	15–30	64 × 64
EGF Time Series	0.88	2.64	30	64 × 64

All tabulated values are for an individual frame, although multiple sequential frames were recorded in both the electrophysiology and EGF experiments. For each recording type, the width of each pixel at acquisition is reported, as well as the width of the area included in the binned lifetime signal during fitting. All pixels are square. The acquisition time reflects the total time to collect the image, not the total time exposing each pixel. All FLIM images have 256 time bins in the ns regime, so a 256 × 256 spatial image size represents a 256 × 256 × 256 total dataset. Img = image.

Determination of regions of interest

Request a detailed protocol

Images were divided into cell groups, with each cell group as a single region of interest (ROI). ROIs were determined from photon count images, either manually from the cell morphology in FIJI (Schindelin et al., 2012) or automatically by sharpening and then thresholding the signal intensity with custom MATLAB code (Source code 2). Regions of images that were partially out of the optical section or contained punctate debris were omitted. Sample ROIs are shown in Figure 1—figure supplement 1.

For cells that adjoin other cells, attribution of a membrane region to one cell versus the other is not possible. As such, we chose to interpret each cell group as an independent sample (‘n’) instead of extracting V_mem values for individual cells. Adjacent cells in a group are electrically coupled to varying degrees, and their resting membrane potentials are therefore not independent (Meşe et al., 2007). While this approach did not fully utilize the spatial resolution of VF-FLIM, it prevented overestimation of biological sample size for the effect in question.

Conversion of lifetime to transmembrane potential

Request a detailed protocol

The mean τ_m across all pixels in an ROI was used as the lifetime for that ROI. Lifetime values were mapped to transmembrane potential via the lifetime-V_mem standard curves determined with whole-cell voltage-clamp electrophysiology. For electrophysiology measurements, the relationship between the weighted average lifetime (Equation 4) and membrane potential for each patched cell was determined by linear regression, yielding a sensitivity (m, ps/mV) and a 0 mV lifetime (b, ps) for each cell (Equation 5). The average sensitivity and 0 mV point across all cells of a given type were used to convert subsequent lifetime measurements (τ) to V_mem (Figure 2—source data 1, Equation 6). For quantifying changes in voltage (ΔV_mem) from changes in lifetime (Δτ), only the average sensitivity is necessary (Equation 7).

(5) $\tau =m\mathrm{*}{V}_{mem}+b$

(6) $V_{mem}=\mathrm{}\frac{(\tau -\mathrm{}b)}{m}$

(7) $\Delta V_{mem}=\mathrm{}\frac{\left(\Delta \tau \right)}{m}$

Where standard error of the mean of a voltage determination (δV_mem) is given, error was propagated to include the standard errors of the slope (δm) and y-intercept (δb) of the voltage calibration, as well as the standard error of the lifetime measurements (δτ) in the condition of interest (Equation 8). For error in a voltage change (δΔV_mem), only error in the calibration slope was included in the propagated error (Equation 9). Where standard deviation of VF-FLIM derived V_mem values is shown, a similar error propagation procedure was applied, using the standard deviation of the average sensitivity and 0 mV lifetime for that cell line.

(8) $\delta V_{mem}=\left|V_{mem}\right|\sqrt{{\left(\frac{\sqrt{{\delta \tau }^2+{\delta b}^2}}{\tau -b}\right)}^2+{\left(\frac{\delta m}{m}\right)}^2}$

(9) $\delta \Delta V_{mem}=\left|\Delta V_{mem}\right|\sqrt{{\left(\frac{\delta \Delta \tau }{\Delta \tau }\right)}^2+{\left(\frac{\delta m}{m}\right)}^2}\mathrm{}$

Resolution of VF-FLIM voltage determination

Request a detailed protocol

The intrinsic nature of fluorescence lifetime introduces a point of reference into the voltage measurement, from which a single lifetime image can be interpreted as resting membrane potential. Differences in this reference point (reported here as the 0 mV lifetime) over time and across cells provides an estimate of the voltage-independent noise in VF-FLIM. We report resolution as the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) between the optically calculated voltage (V_FLIM) and the voltage set by whole-cell voltage clamp (V_ephys), which is analogous to the resolution calculations described previously by Cohen and co-workers (Hou et al., 2014). The RMSD of n measurements (Equation 10) can be determined from the variance σ (Cone and Cone, 1976) (Equation 11) and the bias (Equation 12) of the estimator (in this case, VF-FLIM) relative to the ‘true’ value (in this case, electrophysiology). These calculations are described graphically in Scheme 2 below.

(10) $RMSD=\sqrt{{\sigma }^2+{Bias}^2}$

(11) ${\sigma }^2=\frac{1}{n}\sum _{i=1}^n{(V_{FLIM,\mathrm{}i}-\mathrm{}{V}_{ephys,\mathrm{}i})}^2$

(12) $Bias=\frac{1}{n}\sum _{i=1}^n{V}_{FLIM,\mathrm{}i}-\mathrm{}\frac{1}{n}\sum _{i=1}^n{V}_{ephys,i}$

The voltage-independent variations in lifetime are much larger between cells than within a cell. Therefore, the error in measuring absolute voltage changes on a given cell (‘intra-cell’ comparisons) is lower than the error in determining the absolute V_mem of that cell (‘inter-cell’ comparisons, since the calibration used is from another cell). We can therefore determine an ‘intra-cell’ RMSD and an ‘inter-cell’ RMSD to reflect the voltage resolution of these two types of measurements. To calculate ‘intra-cell’ error, we look at the RMSD between V_ephys and V_FLIM using the τ_fl-V_mem relationship for that specific cell. Phrased another way, we are looking at the amount of error that would be expected in estimating V_mem of a cell if its exact τ_fl-V_mem relationship were known. This ‘intra cell’ RMSD estimates the error expected in quantifying changes in V_mem on a given cell. We calculate an intra cell error for each cellular recording, so intra cell errors are reported throughout the text as a mean ± SEM of the intra cell errors for all individual cells of a given type. The average intra cell error was at or below 5 mV for all cell lines tested (Figure 2—source data 1).

Scheme 2

Download asset Open asset

The error in the absolute membrane potential determination (‘inter-cell’) is calculated here as the RMSD between the y-intercept (0 mV lifetime) of all of the individual cells’ lifetime-voltage relationships and the 0 mV value for the averaged calibration for all cells of a given type. This metric quantifies how well the lifetime-V_mem relationship for a given cell line represents an individual cell’s lifetime-V_mem relationship. This ‘inter cell’ RMSD ranged from 10 to 23 mV for the tested cell lines (Figure 2—source data 1). Much smaller errors for a population value of V_mem can be obtained by averaging V_mem recordings from multiple cells.

This method of calculating error assumes that the electrophysiology measurement is perfectly accurate and precise. Realistically, it is likely that some of the variation seen is due to the quality of the voltage clamp. As a result, these RMSD values provide a conservative upper bound for the voltage errors in VF-FLIM.

Analysis of CAESR lifetimes

Request a detailed protocol

For sample images of CAESR in HEK293T (Figure 1—figure supplement 4), fluorescence decays were fit using SPCImage to a biexponential decay model as described for VF2.1.Cl above, using a peak photon threshold of 150 and a bin of 2 (binned pixel width of 5 μm). To better match the studies by Cohen and co-workers (Brinks et al., 2015), which isolated the membrane fluorescence from cytosolic fluorescence by directing the laser path, the lifetime-voltage relationships were not determined with these square-binned images. Instead, membranes were manually identified, and the fluorescence decays from all membrane pixels were summed together before fitting once per cell. (This is in contrast to the processing of VoltageFluor data, where the superior signal to noise and localization enables fitting and analysis of the lifetime on a pixel by pixel basis). This ‘one fit per membrane’ analysis of CAESR was performed in custom MATLAB code implementing a Nelder-Mead algorithm (Source code 1, adapted from Enderlein and Erdmann, 1997). CAESR data were fit to a biexponential model with the offset fixed to 0 and the color shift as a free parameter.

Di-8-ANEPPS ratio-based imaging

Request a detailed protocol

In preparation for imaging, HEK293T cells were plated as described above for electrophysiology. 1 µM di-8-ANEPPS was loaded for ten minutes in HBSS at room temperature and atmospheric CO₂. Coverslips were washed twice in HBSS and transferred to fresh HBSS for imaging. No surfactants were used in the loading (e.g. Pluronic F-127) because their presence worsened cell robustness for whole-cell patch-clamp electrophysiology. All recordings were made with HBSS as an extracellular solution; no cells were kept for more than 30 min after dye loading due to the increasing presence of internalized dye.

Epifluorescence imaging was performed with an inverted Observer.Z1 (Carl Zeiss Microscopy) controlled with µManager 1.4 (Open Imaging) (Edelstein et al., 2014). Images were acquired with an Orca Flash 4 Digital CMOS camera (Hamamatsu Corporation; San Jose, CA). Excitation light was provided with a Spectra X light engine (Lumencor, Inc.; Beaverton, OR). Excitation wavelengths were selected with built-in filters in the Spectra X (440/20 bandpass filter for blue and 550/15 bandpass filter for green). Blue-excited images were obtained with an excitation power of 71 mW/mm² and an exposure time of 50 ms. Green-excited images were obtained with an excitation power of 136 mW/mm² and an exposure time of 500 ms. Emission light was collected with a 40x magnification oil immersion objective lens using Immersol 518F immersion oil (Zeiss). Fluorescence emission was selected with a 562 nm long pass dichroic mirror and further filtered by a 593/40 bandpass filter (Semrock). Excitation and emission wavelengths were selected to match previous work with this probe as closely as possible (Zhang et al., 1998) (current excitation [blue]: 440 ± 10 nm; reported excitation [blue]: 440 ± 15 nm; current excitation [green]: 550 ± 7.5 nm; reported excitation [green]: 530 ± 15 nm; current dichroic: 562 nm long-pass; reported dichroic: 565 nm; current emission: 593 ± 20 nm; reported emission: 570 nm long pass).

Di-8-ANEPPS data analysis

Request a detailed protocol

Single color (e.g. blue excited or green excited) fluorescence images were background subtracted at each pixel before ratios were calculated. The background value was determined from a region of interest near the center of the image that contained no cells and minimal fluorescent debris. Excitation ratios (‘R’, blue signal divided by green signal, B/G) were then calculated pixelwise from the background subtracted fluorescence images. Pixels with less than 100 arbitrary units of signal in either the blue or the green channel were excluded from analysis and are depicted in black. Regions of interest (ROIs) were manually selected in FIJI to include only area corresponding to the cell membrane. The ratio was averaged across all pixels in a given ROI (similar to the treatment for VF-FLIM, as described in Figure 1—figure supplement 1). The ratio values per value of V_mem (set by whole cell patch clamp electrophysiology) in Figure 1—figure supplement 5E,F are the average of these cell-averaged ratios obtained in 6 or 7 sequential images acquired while the V_mem was held at the indicated value.

Where normalized R values are discussed, these values were calculated by dividing the ratio at a given potential (averaged for an ROI as discussed above) by the ratio at 0 mV, as reported previously (Zhang et al., 1998). This normalization procedure requires electrode-based calibration for every individual recording and cannot be stably extended to all cells from a particular cell line. Therefore, it is not analogous to VF-FLIM and is not the point of comparison for voltage resolution.

Statistical analysis

Request a detailed protocol

Mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) of data is reported throughout the text. Hypothesis testing was performed as indicated with either analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by appropriate post hoc tests or two-sided, unpaired, unequal variances t-tests. Statistical tests were performed in Python 2 or 3 with the SciPy, pandas and Pingouin (Vallat, 2018) packages. Unless otherwise noted, all data shown reflect at least three biological replicates (independent cultures measured on different days). Each of these biological replicates contained between 1 and 5 technical replicates (different samples of cells that were measured on the same day and had been prepared from the same cell stock). For tandem electrophysiology-FLIM measurements, each τ_fl-V_mem calibration includes at least three biological replicates to capture the variability expected during applications of VF-FLIM. No power analyses were performed before data were collected. Sample sizes throughout the text refer to the total number of cells or cell groups of a given type analyzed across all biological and technical replicates. Cell group identification is discussed in Methods. For experiments where resting membrane potential or resting membrane potential changes are compared to a baseline (Figures 3–5 and supplements), both control measurements and their physiologically or pharmacologically altered counterparts were recorded on each experimental day. Masking was not used during data collection or analysis.

All data presented in the manuscript is available in the supporting/supplementary information.

1. 1. Abdul Kadir L
   2. Stacey M
   3. Barrett-Jolley R

   (2018) Emerging roles of the membrane potential: action beyond the action potential

   Frontiers in Physiology 9:1661.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01661

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Adams DS
   2. Levin M

   (2012) General principles for measuring resting membrane potential and ion concentration using fluorescent bioelectricity reporters

   Cold Spring Harbor Protocols 2012:397:pdb.top067710.

   https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.top067710

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Armstrong CM
   2. Gilly WF

   (1992) Access resistance and space clamp problems associated with whole-cell patch clamping

   Methods in Enzymology 207:100–122.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(92)07007-b

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Barry PH

   (1994) JPCalc, a software package for calculating liquid junction potential corrections in patch-clamp, intracellular, epithelial and bilayer measurements and for correcting junction potential measurements

   Journal of Neuroscience Methods 51:107–116.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0270(94)90031-0

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. Book

   1. Becker W

   (2012)

   The bh TCSPC Handbook (5th edn)

   Becker & Hickl.

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Berezin MY
   2. Achilefu S

   (2010) Fluorescence lifetime measurements and biological imaging

   Chemical Reviews 110:2641–2684.

   https://doi.org/10.1021/cr900343z

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Berndt A
   2. Yizhar O
   3. Gunaydin LA
   4. Hegemann P
   5. Deisseroth K

   (2009) Bi-stable neural state switches

   Nature Neuroscience 12:229–234.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2247

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Blacker TS
   2. Duchen MR

   (2016) Investigating mitochondrial redox state using NADH and NADPH autofluorescence

   Free Radical Biology and Medicine 100:53–65.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2016.08.010

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Boens N
   2. Qin W
   3. Basarić N
   4. Hofkens J
   5. Ameloot M
   6. Pouget J
   7. Lefèvre JP
   8. Valeur B
   9. Gratton E
   10. vandeVen M
   11. Silva ND
   12. Engelborghs Y
   13. Willaert K
   14. Sillen A
   15. Rumbles G
   16. Phillips D
   17. Visser AJ
   18. van Hoek A
   19. Lakowicz JR
   20. Malak H
   21. Gryczynski I
   22. Szabo AG
   23. Krajcarski DT
   24. Tamai N
   25. Miura A

   (2007) Fluorescence lifetime standards for time and frequency domain fluorescence spectroscopy

   Analytical Chemistry 79:2137–2149.

   https://doi.org/10.1021/ac062160k

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Briggman KL
    2. Kristan WB
    3. González JE
    4. Kleinfeld D
    5. Tsien RY

    (2010)

    Membrane Potential Imaging in the Nervous System: Methods and Applications

    61–70, Monitoring integrated activity of individual neurons using FRET-based voltage-sensitive dyes, Membrane Potential Imaging in the Nervous System: Methods and Applications, Springer, 10.1007/978-3-319-17641-3_6.

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Brinks D
    2. Klein AJ
    3. Cohen AE

    (2015) Two-photon lifetime imaging of voltage indicating proteins as a probe of absolute membrane voltage

    Biophysical Journal 109:914–921.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2015.07.038

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Brügger B

    (2014) Lipidomics: analysis of the lipid composition of cells and subcellular organelles by electrospray ionization mass spectrometry

    Annual Review of Biochemistry 83:79–98.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-060713-035324

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Bullen A
    2. Saggau P

    (1999) High-speed, random-access fluorescence microscopy: ii. fast quantitative measurements with voltage-sensitive dyes

    Biophysical Journal 76:2272–2287.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(99)77383-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Cadwell CR
    2. Palasantza A
    3. Jiang X
    4. Berens P
    5. Deng Q
    6. Yilmaz M
    7. Reimer J
    8. Shen S
    9. Bethge M
    10. Tolias KF
    11. Sandberg R
    12. Tolias AS

    (2016) Electrophysiological, transcriptomic and morphologic profiling of single neurons using Patch-seq

    Nature Biotechnology 34:199–203.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3445

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Cervera J
    2. Alcaraz A
    3. Mafe S

    (2016a) Bioelectrical signals and ion channels in the modeling of multicellular patterns and cancer biophysics

    Scientific Reports 6:srep20403.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20403

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Cervera J
    2. Meseguer S
    3. Mafe S

    (2016b) The interplay between genetic and bioelectrical signaling permits a spatial regionalisation of membrane potentials in model multicellular ensembles

    Scientific Reports 6:srep35201.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35201

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Chen RF
    2. Knutson JR

    (1988) Mechanism of fluorescence concentration quenching of carboxyfluorescein in liposomes: energy transfer to nonfluorescent dimers

    Analytical Biochemistry 172:61–77.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(88)90412-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Cone CD
    2. Cone CM

    (1976) Induction of mitosis in mature neurons in central nervous system by sustained depolarization

    Science 192:155–158.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.56781

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. de Silva AP
    2. Gunaratne HQN
    3. Habib-Jiwan J-L
    4. McCoy CP
    5. Rice TE
    6. Soumillion J-P

    (1995) New fluorescent model compounds for the study of photoinduced electron transfer: the influence of a molecular electric field in the excited state

    Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English 34:1728–1731.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.199517281

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Deal PE
    2. Kulkarni RU
    3. Al-Abdullatif SH
    4. Miller EW

    (2016) Isomerically pure tetramethylrhodamine voltage reporters

    Journal of the American Chemical Society 138:9085–9088.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.6b05672

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dumas D
    2. Stoltz JF

    (2005)

    New tool to monitor membrane potential by FRET voltage sensitive dye (FRET-VSD) Using spectral and fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM). Interest in cell engineering

    Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation 33:293–302.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Edelstein AD
    2. Tsuchida MA
    3. Amodaj N
    4. Pinkard H
    5. Vale RD
    6. Stuurman N

    (2014) Advanced methods of microscope control using μManager software

    Journal of Biological Methods 1:10.

    https://doi.org/10.14440/jbm.2014.36

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Enderlein J
    2. Erdmann R

    (1997) Fast fitting of multi-exponential decay curves

    Optics Communications 134:371–378.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-4018(96)00384-7

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Gao L
    2. Liang J
    3. Li C
    4. Wang LV

    (2014) Single-shot compressed ultrafast photography at one hundred billion frames per second

    Nature 516:74–77.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. González JE
    2. Tsien RY

    (1997) Improved indicators of cell membrane potential that use fluorescence resonance energy transfer

    Chemistry & Biology 4:269–277.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-5521(97)90070-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Gordon JA

    (1991) Use of vanadate as protein-phosphotyrosine phosphatase inhibitor

    Methods in Enzymology 201:477–482.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(91)01043-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Grenier V
    2. Daws BR
    3. Liu P
    4. Miller EW

    (2019) Spying on neuronal membrane potential with genetically targetable voltage indicators

    Journal of the American Chemical Society 141:1349–1358.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.8b11997

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Gross E
    2. Bedlack RS
    3. Loew LM

    (1994) Dual-wavelength ratiometric fluorescence measurement of the membrane dipole potential

    Biophysical Journal 67:208–216.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(94)80471-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Harvey CD
    2. Yasuda R
    3. Zhong H
    4. Svoboda K

    (2008) The spread of ras activity triggered by activation of a single dendritic spine

    Science 321:136–140.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159675

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Hodgkin AL
    2. Katz B

    (1949) The effect of sodium ions on the electrical activity of giant axon of the squid

    The Journal of Physiology 108:37–77.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1949.sp004310

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Horn R
    2. Korn SJ

    (1992) Prevention of rundown in electrophysiological recording

    Methods in Enzymology 207:149–155.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(92)07010-l

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Hou JH
    2. Venkatachalam V
    3. Cohen AE

    (2014) Temporal dynamics of microbial rhodopsin fluorescence reports absolute membrane voltage

    Biophysical Journal 106:639–648.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2013.11.4493

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Huang CJ
    2. Harootunian A
    3. Maher MP
    4. Quan C
    5. Raj CD
    6. McCormack K
    7. Numann R
    8. Negulescu PA
    9. González JE

    (2006) Characterization of voltage-gated sodium-channel blockers by electrical stimulation and fluorescence detection of membrane potential

    Nature Biotechnology 24:439–446.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1194

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Huang YL
    2. Walker AS
    3. Miller EW

    (2015) A photostable silicon rhodamine platform for optical voltage sensing

    Journal of the American Chemical Society 137:10767–10776.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.5b06644

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Huang X
    2. Jan LY

    (2014) Targeting potassium channels in cancer

    The Journal of Cell Biology 206:151–162.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201404136

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Lakowicz JR
    2. Szmacinski H
    3. Johnson ML

    (1992) Calcium imaging using fluorescence lifetimes and long-wavelength probes

    Journal of Fluorescence 2:47–62.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00866388

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Lee SJ
    2. Escobedo-Lozoya Y
    3. Szatmari EM
    4. Yasuda R

    (2009) Activation of CaMKII in single dendritic spines during long-term potentiation

    Nature 458:299–304.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07842

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Levin M

    (2014) Molecular bioelectricity: how endogenous voltage potentials control cell behavior and instruct pattern regulation in vivo

    Molecular Biology of the Cell 25:3835–3850.

    https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e13-12-0708

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Levitt JA
    2. Kuimova MK
    3. Yahioglu G
    4. Chung P-H
    5. Suhling K
    6. Phillips D

    (2009) Membrane-bound molecular rotors measure viscosity in live cells via fluorescence lifetime imaging

    The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 113:11634–11642.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9013493

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Li LS

    (2007) Fluorescence probes for membrane potentials based on mesoscopic electron transfer

    Nano Letters 7:2981–2986.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/nl071163p

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Liu M
    2. Jia M
    3. Pan H
    4. Li L
    5. Chang M
    6. Ren H
    7. Argoul F
    8. Zhang S
    9. Xu J

    (2014) Instrument response standard in time-resolved fluorescence spectroscopy at visible wavelength: quenched fluorescein sodium

    Applied Spectroscopy 68:577–583.

    https://doi.org/10.1366/13-07236

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Liu P
    2. Grenier V
    3. Hong W
    4. Muller VR
    5. Miller EW

    (2017) Fluorogenic targeting of voltage-sensitive dyes to neurons

    Journal of the American Chemical Society 139:17334–17340.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.7b07047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Loew LM
    2. Scully S
    3. Simpson L
    4. Waggoner AS

    (1979) Evidence for a charge-shift electrochromic mechanism in a probe of membrane potential

    Nature 281:497–499.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/281497a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Lückhoff A
    2. Clapham DE

    (1994) Calcium channels activated by depletion of internal calcium stores in A431 cells

    Biophysical Journal 67:177–182.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(94)80467-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Magde D
    2. Rojas GE
    3. Seybold PG

    (1999) Solvent dependence of the fluorescence lifetimes of xanthene dyes

    Photochemistry and Photobiology 70:737–744.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1999.tb08277.x

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Magni M
    2. Meldolesi J
    3. Pandiella A

    (1991)

    Ionic events induced by epidermal growth factor: evidence that hyperpolarization and stimulated cation influx play a role in the stimulation of cell growth

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 266:6329–6335.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Maher MP
    2. Wu NT
    3. Ao H

    (2007) pH-Insensitive FRET voltage dyes

    Journal of Biomolecular Screening 12:656–667.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1087057107302113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Malinow R
    2. Tsien RW

    (1990) Presynaptic enhancement shown by whole-cell recordings of long-term potentiation in hippocampal slices

    Nature 346:177–180.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/346177a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Marquèze-Pouey B
    2. Mailfert S
    3. Rouger V
    4. Goaillard JM
    5. Marguet D

    (2014) Physiological epidermal growth factor concentrations activate high affinity receptors to elicit calcium oscillations

    PLOS ONE 9:e106803.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106803

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. McKeithan WL
    2. Savchenko A
    3. Yu MS
    4. Cerignoli F
    5. Bruyneel AAN
    6. Price JH
    7. Colas AR
    8. Miller EW
    9. Cashman JR
    10. Mercola M

    (2017) An automated platform for assessment of congenital and drug-induced arrhythmia with hiPSC-derived cardiomyocytes

    Frontiers in Physiology 8:766.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00766

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Meşe G
    2. Richard G
    3. White TW

    (2007) Gap junctions: basic structure and function

    The Journal of Investigative Dermatology 127:2516–2524.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jid.5700770

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Miller EW
    2. Lin JY
    3. Frady EP
    4. Steinbach PA
    5. Kristan WB
    6. Tsien RY

    (2012) Optically monitoring voltage in neurons by photo-induced electron transfer through molecular wires

    PNAS 109:2114–2119.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1120694109

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Montana V
    2. Farkas DL
    3. Loew LM

    (1989) Dual-wavelength ratiometric fluorescence measurements of membrane potential

    Biochemistry 28:4536–4539.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00437a003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Moolenaar WH
    2. Yarden Y
    3. de Laat SW
    4. Schlessinger J

    (1982)

    Epidermal growth factor induces electrically silent Na+ influx in human fibroblasts

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 257:8502–8506.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Moolenaar WH
    2. Aerts RJ
    3. Tertoolen LG
    4. de Laat SW

    (1986)

    The epidermal growth factor-induced calcium signal in A431 cells

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 261:279–284.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Mozhayeva GN
    2. Naumov AP
    3. Kuryshev YA

    (1989) Epidermal growth factor activates calcium-permeable channels in A 431 cells

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Cell Research 1011:171–175.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4889(89)90206-1

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Ouadid-Ahidouch H
    2. Le Bourhis X
    3. Roudbaraki M
    4. Toillon RA
    5. Delcourt P
    6. Prevarskaya N

    (2001)

    Changes in the K+ current-density of MCF-7 cells during progression through the cell cycle: possible involvement of a h-Ether.a-Gogo K+ channel.

    Receptors & Channels 7:345–356.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Pandiella A
    2. Malgaroli A
    3. Meldolesi J
    4. Vicentini LM

    (1987) EGF raises cytosolic Ca2+ in A431 and Swiss 3T3 cells by a dual mechanism. Redistribution from intracellular stores and stimulated influx

    Experimental Cell Research 170:175–185.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4827(87)90127-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Pandiella A
    2. Magni M
    3. Lovisolo D
    4. Meldolesi J

    (1989)

    The effects of epidermal growth factor on membrane potential

    J. Biol. Chem 264:12914–12921.

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Peppelenbosch MP
    2. Tertoolen LGJ
    3. De Laat SW

    (1991)

    Epidermal growth factor-activated calcium and potassium channels

    J. Biol. Chem 266:19938–19944.

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Peterka DS
    2. Takahashi H
    3. Yuste R

    (2011) Imaging voltage in neurons

    Neuron 69:9–21.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.12.010

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Raspe M
    2. Kedziora KM
    3. van den Broek B
    4. Zhao Q
    5. de Jong S
    6. Herz J
    7. Mastop M
    8. Goedhart J
    9. Gadella TWJ
    10. Young IT

    (2015) SiFLIM: single-image frequency-domain FLIM provides fast and photon-efficient lifetime data

    Methods 6:3836.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3836

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Reddy RJ
    2. Gajadhar AS
    3. Swenson EJ
    4. Rothenberg DA
    5. Curran TG
    6. White FM

    (2016) Early signaling dynamics of the epidermal growth factor receptor

    PNAS 113:3114–3119.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521288113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Ross WN
    2. Reichardt LF

    (1979) Species-specific effects on the optical signals of voltage-sensitive dyes

    The Journal of Membrane Biology 48:343–356.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01869445

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Rothenberg P
    2. Reuss L
    3. Glaser L

    (1982) Serum and epidermal growth factor transiently depolarize quiescent BSC-1 epithelial cells

    PNAS 79:7783–7787.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.79.24.7783

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Schindelin J
    2. Arganda-Carreras I
    3. Frise E
    4. Kaynig V
    5. Longair M
    6. Pietzsch T
    7. Preibisch S
    8. Rueden C
    9. Saalfeld S
    10. Schmid B
    11. Tinevez JY
    12. White DJ
    13. Hartenstein V
    14. Eliceiri K
    15. Tomancak P
    16. Cardona A

    (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis

    Nature Methods 9:676–682.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Thul PJ
    2. Åkesson L
    3. Wiking M
    4. Mahdessian D
    5. Geladaki A
    6. Ait Blal H
    7. Alm T
    8. Asplund A
    9. Björk L
    10. Breckels LM
    11. Bäckström A
    12. Danielsson F
    13. Fagerberg L
    14. Fall J
    15. Gatto L
    16. Gnann C
    17. Hober S
    18. Hjelmare M
    19. Johansson F
    20. Lee S
    21. Lindskog C
    22. Mulder J
    23. Mulvey CM
    24. Nilsson P
    25. Oksvold P
    26. Rockberg J
    27. Schutten R
    28. Schwenk JM
    29. Sivertsson Å
    30. Sjöstedt E
    31. Skogs M
    32. Stadler C
    33. Sullivan DP
    34. Tegel H
    35. Winsnes C
    36. Zhang C
    37. Zwahlen M
    38. Mardinoglu A
    39. Pontén F
    40. von Feilitzen K
    41. Lilley KS
    42. Uhlén M
    43. Lundberg E

    (2017) A subcellular map of the human proteome

    Science 356:eaal3321.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal3321

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Tsuchiya W
    2. Okada Y

    (1982) Membrane potential changes associated with differentiation of enterocytes in the rat intestinal villi in culture

    Developmental Biology 94:284–290.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-1606(82)90348-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Vallat R

    (2018) Pingouin: statistics in python

    Journal of Open Source Software 3:1026.

    https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01026

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Wang L

    (2012) Measurements and implications of the membrane dipole potential

    Annual Review of Biochemistry 81:615–635.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-070110-123033

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Williams SR
    2. Mitchell SJ

    (2008) Direct measurement of somatic voltage clamp errors in central neurons

    Nature Neuroscience 11:790–798.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2137

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Wonderlin WF
    2. Woodfork KA
    3. Strobl JS

    (1995) Changes in membrane potential during the progression of MCF-7 human mammary tumor cells through the cell cycle

    Journal of Cellular Physiology 165:177–185.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.1041650121

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Woodford CR
    2. Frady EP
    3. Smith RS
    4. Morey B
    5. Canzi G
    6. Palida SF
    7. Araneda RC
    8. Kristan WB
    9. Kubiak CP
    10. Miller EW
    11. Tsien RY

    (2015) Improved PeT molecules for optically sensing voltage in neurons

    Journal of the American Chemical Society 137:1817–1824.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/ja510602z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Wulff H
    2. Miller MJ
    3. Hansel W
    4. Grissmer S
    5. Cahalan MD
    6. Chandy KG

    (2000) Design of a potent and selective inhibitor of the intermediate-conductance Ca2+-activated K+ channel, IKCa1: a potential immunosuppressant

    PNAS 97:8151–8156.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.14.8151

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Yang M
    2. Brackenbury WJ

    (2013) Membrane potential and cancer progression

    Frontiers in Physiology 4:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2013.00185

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Yellen G
    2. Mongeon R

    (2015) Quantitative two-photon imaging of fluorescent biosensors

    Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 27:24–30.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2015.05.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Zhang J
    2. Davidson RM
    3. Wei MD
    4. Loew LM

    (1998) Membrane electric properties by combined patch clamp and fluorescence ratio imaging in single neurons

    Biophysical Journal 74:48–53.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(98)77765-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Zhang H
    2. Reichert E
    3. Cohen AE

    (2016) Optical electrophysiology for probing function and pharmacology of voltage-gated ion channels

    eLife 5:e15202.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15202

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Zheng K
    2. Bard L
    3. Reynolds JP
    4. King C
    5. Jensen TP
    6. Gourine AV
    7. Rusakov DA

    (2015) Time-resolved imaging reveals heterogeneous landscapes of nanomolar Ca2+ in neurons and astroglia

    Neuron 88:277–288.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.043

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Zhou Y
    2. Wong CO
    3. Cho KJ
    4. van der Hoeven D
    5. Liang H
    6. Thakur DP
    7. Luo J
    8. Babic M
    9. Zinsmaier KE
    10. Zhu MX
    11. Hu H
    12. Venkatachalam K
    13. Hancock JF

    (2015) Membrane potential modulates plasma membrane phospholipid dynamics and K-Ras signaling

    Science 349:873–876.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5619

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Julia R Lazzari-Dean

   Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States

   Contribution

   Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2971-5379

2. Anneliese MM Gest

   Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Evan W Miller

   1. Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
   2. Department of Molecular & Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
   3. Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   evanwmiller@berkeley.edu

   Competing interests

   is listed as an inventor on a patent describing voltage-sensitive fluorophores. This patent (US20170315059) is owned by the Regents of the University of California

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6556-7679

• 8,573

  views

• 1,138

  downloads

• 54

  citations

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