ArticleMolecular biology reports2009
Green fluorescent protein is superior to blue fluorescent protein as a quantitative reporter of promoter activity in E. coli.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluorescent proteins related to and derived from green fluorescent protein (GFP) are widely used as tools for investigating a wide range of biological processes. In particular, GFP and its relatives have been used extensively as qualitative reporters of gene expression in many different organisms, but relatively few studies have investigated fluorescent proteins as quantitative reporters of gene expression. GFP has some limitations as a reporter gene, including possible toxicity when expressed at high levels. Therefore, it would be useful if other fluorescent proteins could be identified for use as quantitative reporters. Toward this end, we investigated BFP as a quantitative reporter of promoter activity in E. coli and directly compared it with GFPuv using a set of well-characterized synthetic constitutive promoters. The fluorescence produced in E. coli strains expressing GFPuv or BFP grown on solid medium was quantified using a CCD camera and fluorimetry. GFPuv consistently gave more reliable and statistically significant results than did BFP in all assays. Correspondingly, we found that the signal-to-noise ratio for GFPuv fluorescence is substantially higher than for BFP. We conclude that, under the conditions assessed in this study, GFPuv is superior to BFP as a quantitative reporter of promoter activity in E. coli.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18622760What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.