Subscriber access provided by TUFTS UNIV

Article
Genetically encoded FRET-based biosensors
studied on the single-molecule level
Henning Hoefig, Julia Otten, Victoria Steffen, Martina Pohl, Arnold J. Boersma, and Joerg Fitter
ACS Sens., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.8b00143 • Publication Date (Web): 06 Jul 2018
Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on July 8, 2018

Just Accepted

“Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted
online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical
Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination
of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in
full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully
peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the
Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore,
the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After
a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web
site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes
to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and
ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or
consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W.,

Washington, DC 20036
Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society.
However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works
produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course
of their duties.
Page 1 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3
4
Genetically encoded FRET-based biosensors studied on the single-molecule
5 level
6
7
8 Henning Höfig1,2, Julia Otten3, Victoria Steffen3, Martina Pohl3, Arnold J. Boersma4, Jörg Fitter
9 1,2,*
10
11
12 1
13 RWTH Aachen, I. Physikalisches Institut (IA), Aachen, Germany
2
Forschungszentrum Jülich, ICS-5: Molecular Biophysics, Jülich, Germany
14 3
Forschungszentrum Jülich, IBG-1: Biotechnology, Jülich, Germany
15 4
Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute, University of Groningen, Netherlands
16
17
18 * Correspondence should be addressed to fitter@physik.rwth-aachen.de Tel.: +49 241 80 27209 Fax: +49
19
20
241 80 22331
21
22
23
24
25 Keywords: glucose sensor, crowding sensor, single molecule FRET, conformational change,
26 chomophore maturation
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 1
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 2 of 25

1
2
3 ABSTRACT
4
5
Genetically encoded FRET-based biosensors for the quantification of ligand molecules
6
7
8 change the magnitude of Förster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) between two
9
10 fluorescent proteins upon binding a target metabolite. When designing highly sensitive
11
12 sensors extensive sensor optimization is essential. However, it is often difficult to verify the
13
14
15 ideas of modifications made to a sensor during sensor optimization process due to the
16
17 limited information content of ensemble FRET measurements. In contrast, single-molecule
18
19 detection provides detailed information and higher accuracy. Here, we investigated a set of
20
21
22
glucose and crowding sensors on the single-molecule level. We report the first
23
24 comprehensive single-molecule study of FRET-based biosensors with reasonable counting
25
26 statistics and identify characteristics in the single-molecule FRET histograms that
27
28
constitute fingerprints of sensor performance. Hence, our single-molecule approach extents
29
30
31 the toolbox of methods aiming to understand and to optimize the design of FRET-based
32
33 biosensors.
34
35
36
37
Genetically encoded FRET-based biosensors are powerful analytical tools that can for example
38
39
40 recognize the presence of specific small molecules or sense environmental conditions in vivo1.
41
42 The sensors are fusion proteins that consist of a central sensing protein flanked by two
43
44 fluorescent proteins. The optical read-out of the sensor is based on Förster Resonance Energy
45
46
47 Transfer (FRET) between the fluorescent proteins that changes upon ligand binding to the
48
49 sensing protein or due to other environmental impacts. There are various strategies how to
50
51 optimize a sensor (i.e. increasing the change in FRET) concerning the central sensing protein, the
52
53
54
fluorescent proteins (FPs), and linker sequences between them1, 2. However, a detailed molecular
55
56
57
58 2
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 3 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3 understanding of how a certain sensor modification affects FRET is lacking and is still an object
4
5
6 of investigation3-5.
7
8 A frequently employed application of FRET-based biosensors is the detection of intracellular
9
10 metabolites. Prototypical examples of these sensors are those based on periplasmic binding
11
12
13
proteins (PBPs) as the ligand binding protein and make use of the Venus-flytrap-principle6-8.
14
15 According to Förster’s theory, a substantial change of FRET is only accomplished if ligand
16
17 binding alters the distance and/or the relative orientation between the chromophores of the FPs 9,
18
19 10
. This can be achieved by modification of the polypeptide linkers that connect the FPs to the
20
21
22 ligand binding protein. However, one reason for difficulties in achieving sufficient sensor
23
24 performance is the limited information content of ensemble FRET data which makes it hard to
25
26 relate the impact of sensor modifications to the ideas that guide them.
27
28
29 Therefore, in this publication we present a new approach making use of single-molecule analysis
30
31 to characterize different FRET-based sensors in more detail. Our approach benefits from the fact
32
33 that single-molecule FRET (smFRET) can discriminate between coexisting conformational states
34
35
36
in solution. Furthermore the use of confocal multi-parameter fluorescence detection delivers data
37
38 of improved accuracy in determining the energy transfer efficiencies and in resolving
39
40 contributions from distinct population as compared to usual ensemble measurements11. Thereby,
41
42
we focus on sensors that use cyan and yellow FPs as a FRET pair. We demonstrate the potential
43
44
45 of our approach by a comparative analysis of different variants of a glucose sensor which
46
47 strongly vary with respect to their sensing performance. Furthermore, one glucose sensor variant
48
49 and two recently developed specific crowding sensors12 were investigated under crowding
50
51
52 conditions. The related smFRET histograms exhibit a clearly different response to crowding as
53
54
55
56
57
58 3
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 4 of 25

1
2
3 compared to glucose. In summary, each smFRET histogram displays a specific fingerprint of the
4
5
6 respective sensor properties and elucidates the sensor’s operating principles.
7
8 MATERIALS AND METHODS
9
10 Sensor constructs. Construction of nine investigated glucose sensor constructs with different
11
12 linker properties was performed as described by Steffen et al.13. The design of the sensor
13
14 prototype (no. 1) is based on the composition of the sensor FLII12Pglu 600µ9, with altered FP
15
variants for improved fluorescent properties (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, additional amino acids
16
17 flanking the central binding protein were inserted via restriction sites necessary for the cloning
18
19 strategy (see SI Experimental Section for more details).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Figure 1: Graphical illustration of investigated biosensors. (a) Glucose sensor consisting of binding
47
domain (red) equipped with donor (cyan) and acceptor (yellow) FPs. (b) Crowding sensor GE with linker
48
49
domain (red) fused to donor (cyan) and acceptor (yellow) FPs. (c) Construction of the sensors composed
50 of glucose-binding protein (Gl-BP), with inserted mTurquoise2 (donor) and Venus (acceptor). N-terminal
51 and C-terminal linkers are taken from the linker toolbox (no linkers, flexible or rigid linkers). (d) Several
52 applications of the toolbox approach are shown for combinations of flexible linkers, depicted as a purple
53 helix, and stiff linkers, presented as a purple cylinder. All sensors carry additional amino acid sequences
54 next to the central binding protein originating from restriction sites and an N-terminal His6-tag (Tab. S1).
55
56
57
58 4
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 5 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3 The studied crowding sensors consist of either an unstructured linker peptide with a length of 54
4
5 amino acid residues (G18) or a α-helical peptide linker with a total length of 118 residues (GE),
6
7 the latter shown in Fig. 1b. In both cases these linker elements were sandwiched between a
8
9 mCerulean3 donor and mCitrine acceptor. The sequences of the crowding sensor constructs G18
10 and GE can be found in ref.14. Further details on sensor production and sample preparation are
11
12 given in the SI Experimental Section.
13
14
15
16
Methods.
17 Ensemble fluorescence measurements. Isothermal binding curves of the glucose sensors were
18
19 determined in a microtiter plate spectrofluorimeter as described earlier13. Per well, 50 µl of
20
21 sensor solution was mixed each with 50 µl of 24 different glucose solutions (20 mM MOPS, pH
22
7.3, final glucose concentrations 1 µM – 1.25 M). The ensemble characterization of a FRET-
23
24 based biosensor (sensor concentration 1 µM) was performed by an intensity-based read-out.
25
26 Upon donor excitation (at 420 nm) the typical double-peaked fluorescence emission spectrum
27
28 was observed with emission maxima at 472 nm for the donor (ID) and 524 nm for the acceptor
29
(IA), see Fig. S1a. The intensity ratio R = IA/ID was plotted as a function of the glucose
30
31 concentration [G] and fitted with a sigmoidal curve
32
33 ܴ = ൫ܴ௠௔௫ − ܴ௔௣௢ ൯಼ ሾಸሿ
శሾಸሿ
+ ܴ௔௣௢ (1)
ವ
34
35 where Rapo is the ratio without glucose, Rmax is the ratio at saturated glucose concentrations, and
36
37 KD is the glucose concentration at which R increased to half of its maximal rise (Fig. S1b). A
38
possible impact of donor-only fractions on R-values and related E-values was investigated in
39
40 more detail as described in the SI Experimental Section (see Fig. S1d, S2). All graphs showing
41
42 R-values as a function of glucose or crowder concentrations are based on three replicate
43
44 measurements if not stated differently.
45 Single-molecule FRET measurements. Major limitations for successful smFRET studies are
46
47 caused by (i) photo-physical drawbacks of the FPs, (ii) by a rather strong spectral overlap
48
49 between donor and acceptor emission (Fig. S3) and (iii) by a non-negligible direct acceptor
50
51
excitation (Fig. S4). At least two properties of our confocal microscope setup and the subsequent
52 data analysis were crucial for the usability of the measured data: (i) concerning the excitation
53
54 wavelength for the donor, the respective dichroic mirrors and emission filters were chosen such
55
56 that the corresponding Raman scattering was excluded as far as possible from the fluorescence
57
58 5
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 6 of 25

1
2
3 emission channel and (ii) the use of pulsed interleaved excitation (PIE) was mandatory to
4
5 eliminate donor-only contributions from the measured data15.
6
7 Measurements with diffusing sensor constructs were performed on a confocal microscope
8
9
MicroTime 200 (PicoQuant, Berlin, Germany). Briefly, two pulsed diode lasers with emitting
10 wavelengths of 437 nm (LDH-D-C-440, PicoQuant) and 509 nm (LDH-D-C-510, PicoQuant)
11
12 were operated at a frequency of 20 MHz with an average emission power of 17 µW and 5 µW,
13
14 respectively. In sample solutions with highly diluted sensor molecules (a few picomolar) one can
15
obtain energy transfer efficiencies for every single molecule by applying a burst analysis16, 17.
16
17 The measured time traces give access to photon bursts originating from single molecules
18
19 appearing as dips in the inter-photon lag and could be selected by a suitable threshold value18.
20
21 For each selected burst, donor and acceptor photon counts (FD, FA) after donor excitation were
22 accumulated and corrected. For burst with FD + FA > 20 we calculated the energy transfer
23
24 efficiency
25
26 FA
E= (2)
27 FA + γ FD
28
29 for each burst. The determination of the correction factor γ was accomplished by plotting the
30
31 invers stoichiometry (1/S) versus E (see Fig. S5b)19. Due to the low molecular brightness of the
32
33 involved FPs we used a total measuring time of 8-10 hours to obtain a few thousand up to a few
34
35
ten thousand burst for each sample condition. The corrected E-values obtained for each burst
36 were finally histogramed, depending on the number of available bursts we chose 30-80 bins for
37
38 the whole range of E-values. By using the PIE excitation scheme we were able to compare
39
40 histograms including donor-only contributions and those where donor-only bursts were sorted
41 out (see Fig. S6).
42
43 The obtained FRET histograms for glucose titrations were fitted globally with two Gaussian
44
45 distributions (Fig. S1c) and sensor at different crowding concentrations were fitted individually
46
47
with one or two Gaussians. All data analysis was performed with self-written MATLAB®
48 (R2015b, 64-bit) scripts or using OriginPro (9.0.0G, 64bit). A more detailed description of all
49
50 applied procedures is given in the SI Experimental Section.
51
52
53
54 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
55
56
57
58 6
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 7 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3 Ensemble versus single-molecule FRET data
4
5
6 A crucial parameter for FRET-based sensors is given by the change between the minimal (Rapo)
7
8 and the maximal (Rmax) ratio, i.e. ∆R = Rmax – Rapo (see eq. 1 and Fig. S1b). Maximizing this
9
10
change (∆R) is of utmost importance when optimizing a FRET-based biosensor. Usually such
11
12
13 measurements are performed with ensembles of sensor molecules, resulting in binding isotherms
14
15 based on ensemble-averaged R-values8, 9. In contrast to ensemble data, single-molecule data can
16
17
provide detailed information on coexisting sensor subpopulations, which in addition permits the
18
19
20 discrimination of heterogeneities arising from experimental artifacts or impaired sample
21
22 preparations11. In this respect also the degree of chromophore maturation of the individual
23
24 fluorescent proteins (FPs) plays a critical role, because non-fluorescent donor or acceptor FPs
25
26
27 leads to inoperable sensor molecules. Due to the limited molecular brightness (i.e. number of
28
29 emitted photons per fluorophore molecule in a given time interval) of FPs compared to
30
31 commercially available organic fluorescent dyes, reports on single-molecule FRET studies of
32
33
34
FP-equipped biosensors are rare in literature20, 21. In addition, FPs are prone to photo-bleaching
35
36 which impedes single-molecule detection. However, as outlined in Section Materials and
37
38 Methods, and in more detail in the SI Experimental Section, we managed to obtain reasonable
39
40
single-molecule data from all sensor constructs.
41
42
43 As already mentioned, the ratio parameter R is typically utilized to quantify the performance of a
44
45 specific sensor in ensemble studies. This parameter is well suited to compare the response to
46
47 different ligand concentrations of one and the same sensor. In order to compare the performances
48
49
50 of different FRET-based sensors among each other, a parameter on an absolute scale, like the
51
52 transfer efficiency E is beneficial (see Eq. 2 in the Methods section for definition of E), since it
53
54 can take values between zero and one. Compared to typical smFRET histograms measured with
55
56
57
58 7
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 8 of 25

1
2
3 organic fluorescent dyes attached to the protein structure, we observed a pronounced broadening
4
5
6 of the populations well beyond the shot noise limit (see example in Fig. S1c)22. In addition to
7
8 triplet-state formation in the fluorophores or other fast blinking processes23 this is most probably
9
10 caused by the fact that the FPs show a remaining translational and rotational mobility relative to
11
12
13
the sensing domain on a time scale longer than the experimental observation time (i.e. a few
14
15 milliseconds). In such a scenario, the sensing domain remains either in the non-liganded or in the
16
17 liganded state, while in both states the slightly mobile FPs either change their relative
18
19
chromophore orientation or alter their spatial distance21.
20
21
22 It is obvious that successful FRET measurements require two functional FPs. In practice, the
23
24 degree of the chromophore maturation in the specific FP variant depends on several factors
25
26 which can be different from one sensor construct to the other. Among others, the choice of the
27
28
29 respective FP variant, the preparation in recombinant E. coli, as well as the layout of a sensor
30
31 construct might influence the maturation efficiency of the chromophores24. In particular, if the
32
33 acceptor FP in a sensor molecule is non-fluorescent the measured ID-value is artificially
34
35
36 increased and as a result the important ∆R-value cannot reach its potential maximal value (Fig.
37
38 S1d). Therefore, knowing the value of the donor-only molecule fraction in a sensor population is
39
40 crucial to evaluate the performance of a specific sensor construct. Single-molecule detection
41
42
43 offers a unique possibility to quantify the donor-only fraction. An absorption measurement can
44
45 obviously yield the total amount of fluorescent donors and acceptors in a sample. However, it
46
47 cannot deliver a value for the donor-only fraction since the distribution of the FPs among the
48
49
individual sensor molecules is not known. Hence, we exploited the dual-color excitation on the
50
51
52 confocal microscope to make use of two-color coincidence detection25, 26. This single-molecule
53
54 approach enables discrimination between sensor molecules carrying two functional FPs and
55
56
57
58 8
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 9 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3 those which fluoresce at only one color (Fig. S6). Of course, acceptor-only molecules also
4
5
6 weaken the read-out signal, because they do not contribute to the signal at all. However, in a
7
8 FRET experiment solely donor molecules are directly excited and, accordingly, varying
9
10 acceptor-only fractions do not change the value of the FRET read-out itself, e.g. the FRET ratio
11
12
13
R or transfer efficiency E.
14
15
16
17 Analysis of FRET-based glucose sensors with different linkers
18
19
In order to demonstrate the capability of utilizing transfer efficiency histograms to evaluate the
20
21
22 performance of FRET-based biosensors, we analyzed various glucose sensors constructs with a
23
24 systematic variation of different linker combinations between the glucose binding domain and
25
26 the flanking FPs (see Fig. 1c,d). A similar linker toolbox approach was recently used to vary the
27
28
29 sensor properties of a FRET-based L-lysine sensor13. All glucose sensor constructs were
30
31 characterized by binding isotherms (cf. Fig. S1b) recorded with a microtiter plate fluorimeter.
32
33 Some of the applied linker modifications gave highly improved signal changes compared to the
34
35
36
prototype sensor (see also a similar behavior for the L-lysine sensor13). Deeper insight was
37
38 obtained by measuring three different FRET efficiency histograms: (i) in the absence of glucose,
39
40 (ii) at a millimolar concentration of glucose (approximately at the KD), and (iii) at 125 mM
41
42
glucose with fully saturated sensor molecules. The obtained FRET efficiency histograms show
43
44
45 typically two populations representing two states. Consequently, they were fitted globally with
46
47 two Gaussians that had the same mean position and width for all glucose concentrations, but
48
49 individual statistical weights for each population (for details SI Experimental Section).
50
51
52 As a starting point, the sensor prototype (no. 1 in Fig 1d) was investigated. The prototype sensor
53
54 showed only a modest signal change of ∆R = 0.40 (Fig. 2a). The smFRET histogram shows two
55
56
57
58 9
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 10 of 25

1
2
3 strongly overlapping populations in the absence of glucose (see Fig. 2c). Both populations are
4
5
6 already centered at rather high mean transfer efficiencies (E1 = 0.57 and E2 = 0.79, see Tab. S2
7
8 for all fitting parameters). With increasing glucose concentration the population at E1 = 0.57 is
9
10 depopulated by approximately one third, while the other population at higher transfer efficiency
11
12
13
increased its statistical weight accordingly. For this sensor construct we could not observe
14
15 significant differences between the histograms measured at KD of 7 mM glucose concentration
16
17 (Fig. 2d) and at 125 mM (Fig. 2e). In principle we would expected that the histogram for 7 mM
18
19
(Fig. 2d) show a relation of the statistical weights for both populations which is in between those
20
21
22 found in Fig. 2c and Fig. 2e. However, a combination of effects originating from a rather small
23
24 ∆R-values, form a strong overlap of the involved populations in the histogram, and from the non-
25
26
linearity between R- and E-values give rise to almost indistinguishable histograms for the KD and
27
28
29 the saturating concentration conditions in this case.
30
31 Next, we looked at sensor no. 2, which showed the largest glucose-induced signal change of all
32
33
investigated sensors (∆R = 0.98, see Fig. 2b). Here, the donor is connected via a flexible linker to
34
35
36 the glucose binding protein. In the absence of glucose, we observed a dominant population (92 %
37
38 statistical weight) centered at a rather low transfer efficiency of E1 = 0.09 that is well separated
39
40
from a much smaller population (8 %) at a high transfer efficiency of E2 = 0.63 (Fig. 2f). With
41
42
43 rising glucose concentration the statistical weight of the low FRET population decreased
44
45 concomitant with an increase of the high FRET population (Fig. 2g). At saturating glucose
46
47 concentration the high FRET population increased its statistical weight up to 91 %, while only a
48
49
50 small low FRET population (9 %) was left (Fig. 2h and Tab. S2). According to the development
51
52 of smFRET histograms upon increasing glucose concentrations, the most reasonable model
53
54 assumption for the underlying mechanism is to assign the non-liganded (open) state to the low
55
56
57
58 10
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 11 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3 FRET population and the fully liganded (closed) state to the high FRET population. Obviously,
4
5
6 the large difference in the performance of sensors no. 1 and no. 2 measured in ensemble (cf. Fig.
7
8 2a,b) is reflected in a strong divergence between the corresponding smFRET histograms. We
9
10 also measured smFRET histograms for some further sensor constructs.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 Figure 2: Ensemble characterization of construct no. 1 (a) and no. 2 (b) based on relative increase of
44 FRET ratio parameter R supported by the corresponding glucose binding isotherm (red curve). FRET
45 efficiency histograms (without donor-only contributions) at different glucose concentrations globally
46 fitted with two Gaussians (same mean position and width for all glucose concentrations, but individual
47 statistical weights for each population): without glucose (c,f), at KD of binding isotherm (d,g), and at
48 saturating glucose concentration of 125 mM (e,h). The difference in the mean position of both
49 populations (∆Epop = E2 - E1) shown by dashed (E1) and dotted (E2) vertical lines. For more details see
50 Supporting Information.
51
52
53
54
In fact, the two sensors shown in Fig. 2 display two extreme scenarios of possible sensor
55
56 behavior. Other constructs obtained from the toolbox exhibited performances that are in between
57
58 11
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 12 of 25

1
2
3 the above described extreme scenarios (see Fig. S7). Based on the smFRET histograms of all
4
5
6 investigated sensor constructs, mainly two conclusions seem to be essential to achieve the
7
8 intended large signal change ∆R; (i) The non-liganded state should be accumulated in a
9
10
population at low transfer efficiency in order to allow for a large ∆E with respect to the
11
12
13 population of the liganded state at higher transfer efficiencies. (ii) Under ideal conditions, a
14
15 preferably complete transfer of molecules from the low FRET population towards the high FRET
16
17
population should take place with increasing ligand concentration. Both conditions are fulfilled
18
19
20 to a large extend for the sensor construct no. 2. In contrast to this, the performance of the sensor
21
22 prototype no. 1 is impaired: first, by a much smaller ∆Epop between the low FRET and high
23
24
FRET population and second, by an incomplete transfer of molecules from the low FRET state
25
26
27 towards the high FRET state.
28
29 The major goal in designing highly sensitive sensors is to establish a robust conversion of a
30
31 relative small ligand-induced conformational change within the glucose-binding protein into a
32
33
34 measurable rearrangement of the FPs resulting in the highest possible ∆E. Here, single-molecule
35
36 data provide valuable information on the extent to which this requirement is fulfilled. We can
37
38
39
distinguish between scenarios with an insufficient translation mechanism (i.e. a small ∆Epop
40
41 between non-liganded and liganded states, Fig. 2) and those, where in principle a reasonable
42
43 conversion mechanism is established, but only a limited fraction of all sensor molecules makes
44
45
use of it. In fact, often a combination of both problems was observed. From investigations of the
46
47
48 sensor constructs investigated in this study, we learned that the linker between the N-terminal
49
50 donor and the glucose binding protein is most important with the introduction of either a flexible
51
52 or a rigid linker resulting in functional sensor constructs having the desired features (sensors no.
53
54
55 2 and no. 3, shown in Fig. 2, Fig. S7, respectively). By contrast, the additional introduction of a
56
57
58 12
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 13 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3 linker between the acceptor and the glucose binding protein (sensors no. 5 and no. 8) lowered the
4
5
6 sensor performance, since a significant fraction of sensor molecules is already converted into the
7
8 high FRET state in the absence of glucose (Fig. S7). The absence of linkers (sensor no. 1) or
9
10 only a linker at the acceptor FP site (sensor no. 4) gave even weaker sensor performances. Since
11
12
13
the remaining sensors produced with the linker-tool box approach (no. 6, no. 7, no. 9) showed
14
15 rather poor performance, we do not expect further insights from smFRET histograms and
16
17 omitted therefore single-molecule studies for these constructs. For all six sensor constructs which
18
19
we analyzed on single-molecule level we also calculated averaged R-values and compared them
20
21
22 to the related values from the ensemble measurements. Within the limits of errors, this
23
24 comparison revealed a reasonable consistency between ensemble and single-molecules
25
26 measurements (see Fig. S8).
27
28
29 Table 1: Parameters characterizing the sensor performance
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 a
45
∆R-values characterize the sensor sensitivity at ensemble level; b ∆Eavg,D0 represents the difference of the
46 average FRET efficiency E between 0 mM and 125 mM glucose including the donor-only contribution
47 with ∆Eavg,D0=(1-xD0) ∆Eavg, where xD0 is the donor-only fraction (see Fig. S9) and ∆Eavg is the difference
48 between the average single-molecule E measured at 0 mM and 125 mM glucose without donor-only
49 contributions (<E>sm in Tab. S2); c ∆Epop values give the difference between low FRET (E1) to the high
50 FRET (E2) state; d The difference between ∆Eavg,D0/∆Epop and ∆Eavg/∆Epop enumerates the reduction in the
51 sensor performance solely caused by donor-only fractions.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 13
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 14 of 25

1
2
3
The comparison of three different ∆E values in Tab. 1, calculated from the obtained smFRET
4
5
6 histograms, allowed a stepwise identification and quantification of properties that reduced the
7
8 sensor performance. First, the difference of the average transfer efficiency between 0 mM and
9
10
125 mM glucose is calculated, in one case by including the donor-only molecules (∆Eavg,D0) and
11
12
13 in another case after sorting them out (∆Eavg). Second, we quantify the difference between the
14
15 mean positions of the low FRET and high FRET population (∆Epop). Finally, we give ∆Eavg,D0
16
17
18 and ∆Eavg in relation to ∆Epop, because ∆Epop defines the ultimate limit for the specific sensor
19
20 performance, i.e. all sensor molecules shift completely from the low FRET to the high FRET
21
22
23
state. The higher the value of ∆Epop the better is the conversion of the glucose-induced
24
25 conformational change into a change in FRET efficiency. How efficient the sensor construct
26
27 makes use of this conversion, i.e. which fraction of the sensor molecules changes from the low
28
29
30 FRET to the high FRET state, is given by ∆Eavg/∆Epop. Here, the sensor constructs no. 2 and no.
31
32 3 show the highest ∆Epop and also a large fraction of the molecules makes use of the transition
33
34
35
(87 % and 83 %, respectively). Sensors no 4, 5 and 8 show intermediate ∆Epop-values and
36
37 additionally a lower fraction of molecules take part in the transition (between 45 % and 79 %).
38
39 At last, we estimated how large the change in FRET efficiency would be, if donor-only
40
41
molecules could not be excluded (like in ensemble measurements), based on the donor-only
42
43
44 fraction given in Fig. S9. Since the glucose sensor constructs have a donor-only fraction in the
45
46 order of 30-40%, we likewise observed a corresponding reduction of their potential FRET
47
48 change. As mentioned already, R- and E-values are in general not proportional to each other and
49
50
51 a comparison between both is not straight forward. This is also visible by the fact that the
52
53 absolute value of E is crucial for the ensemble read-out in terms of R-values. On the one hand,
54
55 the impact of errors on R due to varying donor-only fractions is much weaker, if the absolute
56
57
58 14
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 15 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3 values of E is small (see SI Experimental Section). On the other hand, the sensitivity (given
4
5
6 Table 1 as ∆R) is much higher for larger absolute E values, due to the non-linear relationship
7
8 between R-values and transfer efficiencies E (Fig. S2b). This is demonstrated by comparison of
9
10
sensors no. 1 and no. 4. The ∆Eavg,D0 of construct no. 4 is approximately 3-fold higher as
11
12
13 compared to that of construct no.1. However, the ∆R value of construct no. 4 is by a factor of
14
15 two smaller as compared to that of construct no. 1, because the latter works on higher absolute
16
17
18 values of E (cf. Tab. S2).
19
20 In summary, an ideal sensor would display (i) a low donor-only fraction (efficient acceptor
21
22 maturation), (ii) a large difference in FRET efficiency between population means of non-
23
24
liganded and liganded state, and finally (iii) a complete transfer from the low FRET population
25
26
27 (non-liganded) to the high FRET population (liganded). At the time we do not really understand
28
29 the molecular mechanisms which lead to the fact that a certain fraction of sensors shows already
30
31 (closed) high FRET states in the absence of glucose and why not all sensor molecules adopt the
32
33
34 high FRET state at saturating glucose concentrations. Although some of the investigated sensor
35
36 constructs show already a quite reasonable performance (sensor no. 2 and no. 3), there is
37
38 additional potential to improve the sensors further, for example by employing circularly
39
40
41 permuted FPs4, 27.
42
43
44
45 Impact of crowding effects on FRET-based sensors
46
47
Since genetically encoded FRET-based biosensors are often employed in the crowded
48
49
50 environment of the cytosol, we make use of the single-molecule approach to elucidate how
51
52 molecular crowding affects such sensors. As known from previous studies, high concentrations
53
54 of crowding agents have the potential to compact biological macromolecules28, 29. This behavior
55
56
57
58 15
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 16 of 25

1
2
3 was also observed for FRET-based biosensors, for example promoted by synthetic
4
5
6 macromolecular crowding agents producing more compact conformations of the sensor caused
7
8 by excluded volume effects30. However, this effect is typically undesired for metabolite sensors,
9
10 because it impedes the usability of an in vitro calibration for data measured in vivo. In contrast,
11
12
13
FRET-based biosensors were recently developed that specifically sense macromolecular
14
15 crowding12, 31. These sensors can potentially map how much crowded certain compartments of
16
17 the cell are and, therefore, gain insight how crowding influences cellular processes. Here we
18
19
investigated the effect of artificial crowding caused by polyethylene glycol (PEG) on glucose
20
21
22 sensor no. 2 and on two crowding sensors.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 Figure 3: Ensemble fluorescence intensity ratio R for glucose sensor no. 2 (a) and for crowding sensors
52
G18, GE (b) for different PEG 6,000 concentrations. smFRET efficiency histograms of sensor no. 2 for
53
increasing PEG 6,000 concentrations fitted individually with two populations (c-e). A clear shift of the
54
population means with increasing crowder concentration is observed, which is visualized by vertical
55
56 reference lines positioned at the low FRET peak (dashed) and at the high FRET peak (dotted) as
57
58 16
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 17 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3 referenced for non-crowding conditions (i.e. 0%). smFRET efficiency histograms obtained for G18 sensor
4 were fitted with a single Gaussian (f-h). All parameters obtained from the histogram fitting are given in
5 Tab S2,3.
6
7
8
9
The studied crowding sensors consist of either an unstructured linker peptide with a length of 54
10
11 amino acid residues (G18) or a α-helical peptide linker with a total length of 118 residues (GE),
12
13 see Fig. 1b. All sensors were titrated with the PEG 6,000 (molecular mass of 6 kDa) up to
14
15
16
concentrations of 20% (w/w). The resulting response to PEG 6,000 for both, the glucose and the
17
18 crowding sensors, in terms of IA/ID is shown in Fig. 3a,b. Earlier studies on crowding sensors
19
20 gave similar results 12, 31. The smFRET efficiency histograms of glucose sensor no. 2 in presence
21
22
of increasing PEG 6,000 concentrations are displayed in Figure 3c-e. The measured distribution
23
24
25 of FRET efficiencies were fitted again with two populations, as in the case of glucose titrations
26
27 (cf. Fig. 2). The experimental data shown in Fig. 2f and in 3c (both sensor no. 2) were measured
28
29 under the same environmental conditions but the sample analyzed in Fig. 3c exhibits a more
30
31
32 pronounced shoulder at larger E-values. This is caused by varying sample properties or qualities
33
34 of sensors from different sample batches and not due to measuring process itself. Different
35
36 samples from one and the same batch exhibit a rather high reproducibility as shown in Fig. S10
37
38
39
Also upon increasing crowder concentration the FRET efficiency histograms are best fitted using
40
41 a two-state model since the histograms exhibit a rather broad single peaked, but asymmetric
42
43 distribution which can only be fitted reasonable well with two components. Essentially, the two
44
45
populations show an increasing overlap and a pronounced shift to larger E-values in contrast to
46
47
48 glucose titrations, where the histogram were best described by fixed population positions (see
49
50 Figure S11 for comparison of different fitting approaches). This is a clear difference to the
51
52 behavior of above described effects due to glucose binding where the population peak positions
53
54
55 do not alter but the relative occupancies of the respective populations. However, both additives
56
57
58 17
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 18 of 25

1
2
3 (glucose and PEG) cause a structural compaction of the sensor constructs, but obviously driven
4
5
6 by different molecular mechanisms. According to this observation glucose binding is related to a
7
8 conformational selection model where equilibrium of at least two states preexists of which at
9
10 least one state is able to bind glucose. Interestingly, rather high crowder concentrations led to
11
12
13
even higher transfer efficiency values (E) compared to saturating glucose concentrations (cf. Fig.
14
15 2h and Fig. 3e). But even under conditions of relative strong crowding, further adding of glucose
16
17 leads to an increase of FRET (see Fig. S12).
18
19
In contrast to the glucose sensors, the smFRET histograms of both crowding sensors show
20
21
22 clearly a single population in aqueous buffer solutions (Fig. 3f-h and Fig. S13b-d). Crowding
23
24 sensors with increased crowder concentration resulted in FRET efficiency histograms with
25
26 pronounced shifts of the population mean, but still no appearance of a second population.
27
28
29 Altogether, these observations lead to the conclusion that the crowding sensors do not show
30
31 distinct long-lived states, but most probably display an ensemble of different conformations.
32
33 Increased crowder concentrations generate sensors with more compact conformations which led
34
35
36
to a continuous shift of the population to higher transfer efficiencies. However, they seem not to
37
38 reach a defined saturating state at high crowder concentrations14. A similar crowder-induced
39
40 peak shift was already observed earlier in smFRET studies on several dye-labelled intrinsically
41
42
disordered proteins29. In summary, our single-molecule data reveals that the response
43
44
45 mechanisms to crowding are rather similar for both types of sensors. Compared to the G18 and
46
47 GE crowding sensors, the glucose sensor no. 2 seems to be even more sensitive in the regime of
48
49 low crowder concentrations (i.e. below 10 % (w/w) PEG 6,000, see Fig. S13a). Unfortunately, a
50
51
52 direct application of the glucose sensor as a crowding sensor in the cytosol is not straightforward,
53
54 since metabolites in the cytosol like glucose would bias the read-out of crowding30. On the other
55
56
57
58 18
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 19 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3 hand, an in vivo application of the glucose sensors, which is typically performed in a crowded
4
5
6 environment of the cytosol, would need a crowding adapted calibration of sensors in order to
7
8 deliver reliable ligand concentration from the sensor read-out. However, further improved
9
10 crowding sensors may for example exhibit multiple states which populate or depopulate as a
11
12
13
function of crowding. Here our single molecule approach can contribute to identify or validate
14
15 the targeted properties.
16
17
18
19
CONCLUSION
20
21
22 The aim of this study was to elucidate properties and functionalities of genetically encoded
23
24 FRET-based biosensors in more detail by employing single-molecule spectroscopy. So far,
25
26 smFRET studies on these sensors have not been performed on a quantitative level, mainly due to
27
28
29 photo-physical drawbacks of fluorescent proteins. Another difficulty with CFP and YFP (and
30
31 derivatives thereof) utilized as FRET pairs is given by a strong spectral cross-talk and non-
32
33 negligible direct YFP excitation. However, by employing state-of-the-art data acquisition and
34
35
36
analysis, as well as long measuring times we obtained meaningful FRET efficiency histograms,
37
38 even in the presence of high concentrations of macromolecular crowding agents. We obtained a
39
40 reasonable number of useful burst which is still about tenfold lower as compared to conventional
41
42
smFRET studies with organic fluorescent dyes for the same data acquisition time.
43
44
45 Our single-molecule approach allows for identifying limiting factors that inhibit a good (glucose)
46
47 sensor performance. It thereby offers possible starting points to improve the performance or may
48
49 reveal that the sensor has almost reached its full performance. Although our data cannot provide
50
51
52 a detailed protocol how the linkers should be modified to improve the sensor, it nevertheless
53
54 provides valuable indications. For example, a FRET efficiency histogram of a glucose sensor
55
56
57
58 19
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 20 of 25

1
2
3
that shows a large distance between its population centers (∆Epop), but only a small fraction of
4
5
6 the molecules transfer between the populations might indicate that the conformational change is
7
8 partly hindered. A minor linker modification, e.g. an extension, might in this case improve the
9
10 sensor performance. In contrast, a sensor with a weak signal change but making use of the full
11
12
13 population transfer might need a complete revision of the sensor design, e.g. by changing the
14
15 insertion positions of the fluorescent proteins. Furthermore, single-molecule detection allows for
16
17 excluding the donor-only bias from the data and even for quantifying the donor-only fractions.
18
19
20 We observed significant differences between the donor-only fractions among the tested glucose
21
22 sensors, but also between the glucose sensors and the crowding sensors. This information can
23
24 also be used to guide sensor design. Of course, chromophore maturation is a complex interplay
25
26
of environmental parameters that the fluorescent proteins encounter. However, in particular
27
28
29 improved YFP variants might increase the maturation efficiency and reduce the donor-only
30
31 fraction. Although single-molecule FRET data is much less biased by experimental artifacts
32
33 compared to ensemble data, a detailed discrimination between rotational movements and relative
34
35
36 translational distance changes between the fluorescent proteins is still not straightforward. This
37
38 knowledge would indeed give an important additional impact on a more targeted sensor design.
39
40 Thus, we propose a combination of smFRET, small angle x-ray scattering (SAXS)32, and
41
42
43 computational modelling33, 34 as the most promising approach to achieve further progress.
44
45 Finally, we would like to state that the strength of our approach is given by the ability to
46
47 characterize the performance of FRET sensors by employing smFRET. As a prerequisite, highly
48
49
diluted samples in pure buffers (or with pure ingredients like PEG crowders) and rather long
50
51
52 measuring times are required. Therefore, routine measurements of these sensors in physiological
53
54 environments, like in cell culture supernatants or directly in cells, typically performed with
55
56
57
58 20
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 21 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3 microtiter plate readers or by FLIM (fluorescence life-time imaging) measurements, are so far
4
5
6 not a targeted application of our approach.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 ASSOCIATED CONTENT
16
17
18 Supporting Information
19
20 The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI:
21
22
23 Supporting Experimental Section referring to DNA and protein sequences of glucose and
24 crowding sensor constructs, protein production and purification, sample preparation and storing;
25
26 Supporting methodical details about Ensemble fluorescence measurements, Production of
27
28 sensors with different donor-only fraction, Donor-only implications for ensemble data, Confocal
29
30
microscopy, smFRET measurements and data analysis, smFRET histogram analysis, and Two
31 color coincidence detection, Comparison of single molecule versus ensemble data; Figures S1-
32
33 S13 showing Schematic comparison of ensemble and single molecule data, Effect of different
34
35 donor-only contributions emulated by photo-bleaching series, Illustration of spectral overlap
36
between donor and acceptor emission, Determination of donor leakage and direct acceptor
37
38 excitation, Determination of correction factor ࢽ, Impact of donor-only contribution to FRET
39
40 histograms, Ensemble and smFRET data for glucose sensor construct no. 3,4,5,8, Comparison of
41
42 single molecule versus ensemble data, Donor-only fraction of all investigated sensor constructs,
43 Reproducibility of smFRET sensor measurements, Individual versus global FRET histogram
44
45 fitting of crowded glucose sensors, Impact of crowding on glucose sensing, FRET efficiencies of
46
47 crowding sensors and crowded glucose sensors; Tables S1-S3 presenting Overview on the
48
49
composition of the employed glucose sensor variants, Overview on parameters obtained from
50 histogram fittings of glucose sensors, Overview on parameters obtained from histogram fittings
51
52 of crowding sensors.
53
54
55
56
57
58 21
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 22 of 25

1
2
3 AUTHOR INFORMATION
4
5
6 Corresponding Author
7
8
9 * fitter@physik.rwth-aachen.de Tel.: +49 241 8027209
10
11
12
ORCID
13
14 Jörg Fitter: 0000-0002-4503-2079
15
16
17
Arnold J. Boersma: 0000-0002-3714-5938
18
19 Henning Höfig: 0000-0003-0506-783X
20
21 Julia Otten: 0000-0002-2015-1215
22
23 Martina Pohl: 0000-0001-9935-5183
24
25
Victoria Steffen: 0000-0001-8927-0784
26
27
28
29
30
Author Contributions
31
32
33 J.F., H.H. M.P. and A.B. designed the research; H.H., J.O., and V.S. performed the research;
34
35 M.P., V.S., J.O., and A.B. developed sensor constructs; H.H. analyzed the data and H.H. and J.F.
36
37
38 wrote the manuscript in consultations with all authors.
39
40 Notes
41
42
43 The authors declare no competing financial interest.
44
45
46 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
47
48
49 The authors would like to thank Drs. M. Gabba and M. Cerminara for initial support with the
50
51
installation of the lasers, as well as Dr. J. Walter for preparing illustrations for Fig. 1. H.H.
52
53
54 acknowledges the International Helmholtz Research School on Biophysics and Soft Matter
55
56 (BioSoft) for financial support.
57
58 22
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 23 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3
4
REFERENCES
5 1. Sanford, L.; Palmer, A., Recent Advances in Development of Genetically Encoded Fluorescent
6
Sensors. Method Enzymol 2017, 589, 1-49.
7
8
2. Okumoto, S.; Jones, A.; Frommer, W. B., Quantitative Imaging with Fluorescent Biosensors. Annu
9 Rev Plant Biol 2012, 63, 663-706.
10 3. Komatsu, N.; Aoki, K.; Yamada, M.; Yukinaga, H.; Fujita, Y.; Kamioka, Y.; Matsuda, M.,
11 Development of an optimized backbone of FRET biosensors for kinases and GTPases. Molecular biology
12 of the cell 2011, 22, 4647-56.
13 4. Ohta, Y.; Kamagata, T.; Mukai, A.; Takada, S.; Nagai, T.; Horikawa, K., Nontrivial Effect of the
14 Color-Exchange of a Donor/Acceptor Pair in the Engineering of Forster Resonance Energy Transfer
15 (FRET)-Based Indicators. ACS chemical biology 2016, 11, 1816-22.
16
5. Ast, C.; Foret, J.; Oltrogge, L. M.; De Michele, R.; Kleist, T. J.; Ho, C. H.; Frommer, W. B.,
17
18 Ratiometric Matryoshka biosensors from a nested cassette of green- and orange-emitting fluorescent
19 proteins. Nat Commun 2017, 8, 431.
20 6. de Lorimier, R. M.; Smith, J. J.; Dwyer, M. A.; Looger, L. L.; Sali, K. M.; Paavola, C. D.; Rizk, S. S.;
21 Sadigov, S.; Conrad, D. W.; Loew, L.; Hellinga, H. W., Construction of a fluorescent biosensor family.
22 Protein Sci 2002, 11, 2655-75.
23 7. Dwyer, M. A.; Hellinga, H. W., Periplasmic binding proteins: a versatile superfamily for protein
24 engineering. Current opinion in structural biology 2004, 14, 495-504.
25
8. Moussa, R.; Baierl, A.; Steffen, V.; Kubitzki, T.; Wiechert, W.; Pohl, M., An evaluation of
26
27
genetically encoded FRET-based biosensors for quantitative metabolite analyses in vivo. Journal of
28 Biotechnology 2014, 191, 250-259.
29 9. Deuschle, K.; Okumoto, S.; Fehr, M.; Looger, L. L.; Kozhukh, L.; Frommer, W. B., Construction and
30 optimization of a family of genetically encoded metabolite sensors by semirational protein engineering.
31 Protein Science 2005, 14, 2304-2314.
32 10. Campbell, R. E., Fluorescent-protein-based biosensors: modulation of energy transfer as a
33 design principle. Anal Chem 2009, 81, 5972-9.
34 11. Sisamakis, E.; Valeri, A.; Kalinin, S.; Rothwell, P. J.; Seidel, C. A., Accurate single-molecule FRET
35
studies using multiparameter fluorescence detection. Methods Enzymol. 2010, 475, 455-514.
36
37 12. Boersma, A. J.; Zuhorn, I. S.; Poolman, B., A sensor for quantification of macromolecular
38 crowding in living cells. Nat Methods 2015, 12, 227-+.
39 13. Steffen, V.; Otten, J.; Engelmann, S.; Radek, A.; Limberg, M.; Koenig, B. W.; Noack, S.; Wiechert,
40 W.; Pohl, M., A Toolbox of Genetically Encoded FRET-Based Biosensors for Rapid L-Lysine Analysis.
41 Sensors-Basel 2016, 16.
42 14. Liu, B. Q.; Aberg, C.; van Eerden, F. J.; Marrink, S. J.; Poolman, B.; Boersma, A. J., Design and
43 Properties of Genetically Encoded Probes for Sensing Macromolecular Crowding. Biophys J 2017, 112,
44
1929-1939.
45
46 15. Muller, B. K.; Zaychikov, E.; Brauchle, C.; Lamb, D. C., Pulsed interleaved excitation. Biophys.J
47 2005, 89, 3508-3522.
48 16. Eggeling, C.; Berger, S.; Brand, L.; Fries, J. R.; Schaffer, J.; Volkmer, A.; Seidel, C. A. M., Data
49 registration and selective single-molecule analysis using multi-parameter fluorescence detection.
50 Journal of Biotechnology 2001, 86, 163-180.
51 17. Deniz, A. A.; Laurence, T. A.; Dahan, M.; Chemla, D. S.; Schultz, P. G.; Weiss, S., Ratiometric
52 single-molecule studies of freely diffusing biomolecules. Annu Rev Phys Chem 2001, 52, 233-253.
53
18. Fries, J. R.; Brand, L.; Eggeling, C.; Kollner, M.; Seidel, C. A. M., Quantitative identification of
54
55
different single molecules by selective time-resolved confocal fluorescence spectroscopy. J Phys Chem A
56 1998, 102, 6601-6613.
57
58 23
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 ACS Sensors Page 24 of 25

1
2
3 19. Kudryavtsev, V.; Sikor, M.; Kalinin, S.; Mokranjac, D.; Seidel, C. A. M.; Lamb, D. C., Combining
4
MFD and PIE for Accurate Single-Pair Forster Resonance Energy Transfer Measurements. Chemphyschem
5
2012, 13, 1060-1078.
6
7 20. Brasselet, S.; Peterman, E. J. G.; Miyawaki, A.; Moerner, W. E., Single-molecule fluorescence
8 resonant energy transfer in calcium concentration dependent cameleon. J Phys Chem B 2000, 104, 3676-
9 3682.
10 21. Kyrychenko, A.; Rodnin, M. V.; Ghatak, C.; Ladokhin, A. S., Joint refinement of FRET
11 measurements using spectroscopic and computational tools. Anal Biochem 2017, 522, 1-9.
12 22. Nir, E.; Michalet, X.; Hamadani, K. M.; Laurence, T. A.; Neuhauser, D.; Kovchegov, Y.; Weiss, S.,
13 Shot-noise limited single-molecule FRET histograms: comparison between theory and experiments. J
14
Phys.Chem.B 2006, 110, 22103-22124.
15
16 23. Kalinin, S.; Sisamakis, E.; Magennis, S. W.; Felekyan, S.; Seidel, C. A., On the origin of broadening
17 of single-molecule FRET efficiency distributions beyond shot noise limits. J Phys.Chem.B 2010, 114, 6197-
18 6206.
19 24. Newman, R. H.; Fosbrink, M. D.; Zhang, J., Genetically Encodable Fluorescent Biosensors for
20 Tracking Signaling Dynamics in Living Cells. Chem Rev 2011, 111, 3614-3666.
21 25. Li, H. T.; Ying, L. M.; Green, J. J.; Balasubramanian, S.; Klenerman, D., Ultrasensitive coincidence
22 fluorescence detection of single DNA molecules. Anal Chem 2003, 75, 1664-1670.
23
26. Kempf, N.; Remes, C.; Ledesch, R.; Zuchner, T.; Hofig, H.; Ritter, I.; Katranidis, A.; Fitter, J., A
24
25
Novel Method to Evaluate Ribosomal Performance in Cell-Free Protein Synthesis Systems. Sci Rep-Uk
26 2017, 7, 467535.
27 27. Baird, G. S.; Zacharias, D. A.; Tsien, R. Y., Circular permutation and receptor insertion within
28 green fluorescent proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999, 96, 11241-6.
29 28. Dhar, A.; Samiotakis, A.; Ebbinghaus, S.; Nienhaus, L.; Homouz, D.; Gruebele, M.; Cheung, M. S.,
30 Structure, function, and folding of phosphoglycerate kinase are strongly perturbed by macromolecular
31 crowding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010, 107, 17586-91.
32 29. Soranno, A.; Koenig, I.; Borgia, M. B.; Hofmann, H.; Zosel, F.; Nettels, D.; Schuler, B., Single-
33
molecule spectroscopy reveals polymer effects of disordered proteins in crowded environments. Proc
34
35 Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014, 111, 4874-4879.
36 30. Groen, J.; Foschepoth, D.; te Brinke, E.; Boersma, A. J.; Imamura, H.; Rivas, G.; Heus, H. A.; Huck,
37 W. T. S., Associative Interactions in Crowded Solutions of Biopolymers Counteract Depletion Effects. J
38 Am Chem Soc 2015, 137, 13041-13048.
39 31. Gnutt, D.; Gao, M.; Brylski, O.; Heyden, M.; Ebbinghaus, S., Excluded-Volume Effects in Living
40 Cells. Angew Chem Int Edit 2015, 54, 2548-2551.
41 32. Mertens, H. D. T.; Piljic, A.; Schultz, C.; Svergun, D. I., Conformational analysis of a genetically
42
encoded FRET biosensor by SAXS. Biophys J 2012, 102, 2866-75.
43
44
33. Pham, E.; Chiang, J.; Li, I.; Shum, W.; Truong, K., A computational tool for designing FRET protein
45 biosensors by rigid-body sampling of their conformational space. Structure 2007, 15, 515-23.
46 34. Reinartz, I.; Sinner, C.; Nettels, D.; Stucki-Buchli, B.; Stockmar, F.; Panek, P. T.; Jacob, C. R.;
47 Nienhaus, G. U.; Schuler, B.; Schug, A., Simulation of FRET dyes allows quantitative comparison against
48 experimental data. J Chem Phys 2018, 148, 123321.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 24
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 25 of 25 ACS Sensors

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 FOR TABLE OF CONTENTS ONLY
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 25
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment