On the wobbling-in-cone analysis of fluorescence anisotropy decay.

K. Kinosita, A. Ikegami, S. Kawato

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    131 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Interpretation of fluorescence anisotropy decay for the case of restricted rotational diffusion often requires a model. To investigate the extent of model dependence, two models are compared: a strict cone model, in which a fluorescent probe wobbles uniformly within a cone, and a Gaussian model, where the stationary distribution of the probe orientation is of a Gaussian type. For the same experimental anisotropy decay, analysis by the Gaussian model predicts a smaller value for the rate of wobbling motion than the strict cone analysis, but the difference is 35% at most; the cone angle obtained by the strict cone analysis agrees closely with the effective width of the Gaussian distribution. The results suggest that, when only two parameters (the rate and the angular range) are extracted from an experiment, the choice of a model is not crucial as long as the model contains the essential feature, e.g., the more-or-less conical restriction, of the motion under study. Model-independent analyses are also discussed.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)461-464
    Number of pages4
    JournalBiophysical Journal
    Volume37
    Issue number2
    Publication statusPublished - 1982 Feb

    Fingerprint

    Fluorescence Polarization
    Normal Distribution
    Anisotropy
    Fluorescent Dyes

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Biophysics

    Cite this

    Kinosita, K., Ikegami, A., & Kawato, S. (1982). On the wobbling-in-cone analysis of fluorescence anisotropy decay. Biophysical Journal, 37(2), 461-464.

    On the wobbling-in-cone analysis of fluorescence anisotropy decay. / Kinosita, K.; Ikegami, A.; Kawato, S.

    In: Biophysical Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, 02.1982, p. 461-464.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Kinosita, K, Ikegami, A & Kawato, S 1982, 'On the wobbling-in-cone analysis of fluorescence anisotropy decay.', Biophysical Journal, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 461-464.
    Kinosita K, Ikegami A, Kawato S. On the wobbling-in-cone analysis of fluorescence anisotropy decay. Biophysical Journal. 1982 Feb;37(2):461-464.
    Kinosita, K. ; Ikegami, A. ; Kawato, S. / On the wobbling-in-cone analysis of fluorescence anisotropy decay. In: Biophysical Journal. 1982 ; Vol. 37, No. 2. pp. 461-464.
    @article{e1943d239485409fafa6a5b4a5b903f5,
    title = "On the wobbling-in-cone analysis of fluorescence anisotropy decay.",
    abstract = "Interpretation of fluorescence anisotropy decay for the case of restricted rotational diffusion often requires a model. To investigate the extent of model dependence, two models are compared: a strict cone model, in which a fluorescent probe wobbles uniformly within a cone, and a Gaussian model, where the stationary distribution of the probe orientation is of a Gaussian type. For the same experimental anisotropy decay, analysis by the Gaussian model predicts a smaller value for the rate of wobbling motion than the strict cone analysis, but the difference is 35{\%} at most; the cone angle obtained by the strict cone analysis agrees closely with the effective width of the Gaussian distribution. The results suggest that, when only two parameters (the rate and the angular range) are extracted from an experiment, the choice of a model is not crucial as long as the model contains the essential feature, e.g., the more-or-less conical restriction, of the motion under study. Model-independent analyses are also discussed.",
    author = "K. Kinosita and A. Ikegami and S. Kawato",
    year = "1982",
    month = "2",
    language = "English",
    volume = "37",
    pages = "461--464",
    journal = "Biophysical Journal",
    issn = "0006-3495",
    publisher = "Biophysical Society",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - On the wobbling-in-cone analysis of fluorescence anisotropy decay.

    AU - Kinosita, K.

    AU - Ikegami, A.

    AU - Kawato, S.

    PY - 1982/2

    Y1 - 1982/2

    N2 - Interpretation of fluorescence anisotropy decay for the case of restricted rotational diffusion often requires a model. To investigate the extent of model dependence, two models are compared: a strict cone model, in which a fluorescent probe wobbles uniformly within a cone, and a Gaussian model, where the stationary distribution of the probe orientation is of a Gaussian type. For the same experimental anisotropy decay, analysis by the Gaussian model predicts a smaller value for the rate of wobbling motion than the strict cone analysis, but the difference is 35% at most; the cone angle obtained by the strict cone analysis agrees closely with the effective width of the Gaussian distribution. The results suggest that, when only two parameters (the rate and the angular range) are extracted from an experiment, the choice of a model is not crucial as long as the model contains the essential feature, e.g., the more-or-less conical restriction, of the motion under study. Model-independent analyses are also discussed.

    AB - Interpretation of fluorescence anisotropy decay for the case of restricted rotational diffusion often requires a model. To investigate the extent of model dependence, two models are compared: a strict cone model, in which a fluorescent probe wobbles uniformly within a cone, and a Gaussian model, where the stationary distribution of the probe orientation is of a Gaussian type. For the same experimental anisotropy decay, analysis by the Gaussian model predicts a smaller value for the rate of wobbling motion than the strict cone analysis, but the difference is 35% at most; the cone angle obtained by the strict cone analysis agrees closely with the effective width of the Gaussian distribution. The results suggest that, when only two parameters (the rate and the angular range) are extracted from an experiment, the choice of a model is not crucial as long as the model contains the essential feature, e.g., the more-or-less conical restriction, of the motion under study. Model-independent analyses are also discussed.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0020091977&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0020091977&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 7059650

    AN - SCOPUS:0020091977

    VL - 37

    SP - 461

    EP - 464

    JO - Biophysical Journal

    JF - Biophysical Journal

    SN - 0006-3495

    IS - 2

    ER -