METHODS FOR SIMULTANEOUS MEASUREMENT OF MULTIPLE BIOLOGICAL SIGNALS FROM SPECTRALLY IDENTICAL FLUORESCENT REPORTERS

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The invention, in some aspects relates to compositions and methods for preparing and using signaling reporter islands for spatially multiplexed imaging in cells and subjects.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Biological signals can contain dozens to hundreds of different biomolecular building blocks, which interact in complex ways within cells. For example, intracellular Ca2⁺ dynamics, cyclic AMP (cAMP) levels, and protein kinase activities can all interact within single cells—with consequences for the proliferation and differentiation of cancer cells (Cho-Chung, 1990) and for plasticity and learning in the nervous system (Frey, Huang and Kandel, 1993; Trudeau, Emery and Haydon, 1996; Averaimo and Nicol, 2014), amongst many key biological phenomena. Accordingly, there has been a push by many biologists to create genetically encoded fluorescent indicators of each of these biological signals (DiPilato and Zhang, 2009; Depry, Allen and Zhang, 2011; Chen et al., 2013; Hackley, Mazzoni and Blau, 2018), as well as of many other biological signals (Violin et al., 2003; Belousov et al., 2006; Berg, Hung and Yellen, 2009; Vinkenborg et al., 2009; Oliveira and Yasuda, 2013; Shimozono et al., 2013; Ding et al., 2015, and US Patent Publication US2016/0305939). Because such biomolecular building blocks can exist in different quantities and in different functional states in different cells, but prior methods do not permit simultaneously imaging of multiple biological signals at the same time in individual cells, and so are not adequate for assessing multiple signals in a single physiological cascade (Mehta et al., 2018). On a conventional fluorescence microscope, reporters with different fluorescent spectra can be used simultaneously, but not reporters based on the same fluorophore, because the signals of the same fluorophores mix and result in ambiguous data. Thus the number of reporters used is limited to the number of spectrally resolvable channels on the microscope.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to one aspect of the invention, a composition for RNA-protein-binding-based (RPB) clustering of independently selected reporter molecules in a cell is provided, the composition including: (a) a fusion protein component that includes: (i) one or more independently selected reporter protein elements, (ii) one or more independently selected RNA binding protein elements, (iii) zero, one, or more independently selected epitope tag elements, (iv) zero, one, or more independently selected localization protein motif elements, (v) zero, one, or more independently selected protein linker elements, wherein when present, each of the protein linker elements is positioned between two of the elements of (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv); and (b) an RNA component that includes: (v) a plurality of independently selected RNA molecules including a plurality of independently selected binding sequence elements recognized by the one or more RNA binding protein elements of (a)(ii). In some embodiments, the plurality of binding sequence elements in (b)(vi) includes ten or more binding sequences. In some embodiments, the RNA binding protein elements include one or more of a non-programmable RNA binding element. In certain embodiments, the non-programmable RNA binding elements include one or more of: an MS2 coat protein, a PP7 coat protein, a Lambda N protein, a Q-beta coat protein, a BglG protein, a U1Ap protein, HTLV-1 Rex protein, a TAT protein, an REV protein, and an eiF4A protein. In some embodiments, the RNA binding protein elements include one or more of a programmable RNA binding element. In some embodiments, the programmable RNA binding elements include one or more of a Pumilio homology domain (PumHD) and a Pumilio-based assembly (Pumby). In certain embodiments, when present, the epitope tag elements comprise one or more of an Xpress tag, an HA tag, and a V5 tag, an OLLAS tag, a VSVg tag, an S1 (Strep I) tag, an NWS (Strep II) tag, an E epitope (E tag), a FLAG tag, an E2 tag, an AU1 tag, an AU5 tag, an Myc tag, a Spot tag, a NE tag, an AviTag, a C-tag, a Calmodulin-tag, a polyglutamate tag, an Rho1D4-tag, an S-tag, an SBP-tag, a Softag 1, a Softag 3, a TC tag, and a Ty tag. In some embodiments, the localization protein motif element includes one or more of a subcellular localization protein and a trafficking protein. In some embodiments, the localization protein motif element includes one or more of a nucleus localization motif, a plasma membrane localization motif, and a synapse localization motif. In certain embodiments, when present the protein linker element(s) include one or more glycine-rich linkers. In some embodiments, the glycine-rich linkers include one or more of: a GSG linker, a (GGSGGT)×2 linker, a (GGSGGT)×4 linker, a (GGSGGSGGT)×3 linker, a (GGGS)×2 linker, and a (GGGS)×4 linker. In certain embodiments, when present the protein linker elements include one or more non-glycine-rich linkers. In some embodiments, the non-glycine-rich linkers include one of (EAAAK)×2 and APAPAP. In some embodiments, when two or more protein linker elements are present they include at least one each of a glycine rich linker and a non-glycine rich linker. In certain embodiments, the binding sequence elements include one or more of: an MS2 binding sequence, a PP7 binding sequence, and a lambda N binding sequence (BoxB), a Q-beta binding sequence, a BglG binding sequence, an UiAp aptamer sequence, an HTLV-1 Rex responsive element (RxRE), a TAR sequence, an RRE sequence, and an eiF4A aptamer sequence. In some embodiments, the binding sequence elements include one or more of a sequence that recognizes and selectively binds the programmable binding protein. In some embodiments, the independently selected reporter protein element is a voltage indicator polypeptide, a calcium indicator polypeptide, a potassium indicator polypeptide, a pH indicator polypeptide, or a magnesium indicator polypeptide. In some embodiments, the independently selected reporter protein element is GCaMP6, GCaMP6f, GCaMP6m, GCaMP6s, jGCaMP7, jGCaMP7f, jGCaMP7m, jGCaMP7s, jGCaMP7b, jGCaMP7c, GCaMP-X, jRGECO1, jRCaMP1, NIRGECO, BCaMP, ICUE, ICUE3, cAMPr, Epac-based cAMP indicator, AKAR, AKAR4, ExRai-AKAR, ExRai-AKAR2, CKAR, ExRai-CKAR, EKARev, or RAB-EKARev. In certain embodiments, the independently selected reporter protein element is a GCaMP6f polypeptide or an ICUE3 polypeptide.

According to another aspect of the invention a cell that includes any embodiment of an aforementioned composition.

According to another aspect of the invention, a cell that includes two or more of any embodiments of an aforementioned composition are provided and one or more of the elements of (i)-(iv) and the RNA binding sequence elements are different in each of the two or more of the compositions.

According to another aspect of the invention a vector that encodes a fusion protein of any embodiment of any aforementioned composition of the invention is provided. In some aspects of the invention a cell that includes any embodiment of any aforementioned vector of the invention is provided.

According to another aspect of the invention, a composition for protein self-assembly (PSA) based clustering of independently selected reporter molecules in a cell is provided, the composition included a fusion protein that includes: (a) one or more independently selected reporter protein elements, (b) one or more independently selected self-assembly protein elements, (c) zero, one, or more independently selected epitope tag elements, (d) zero, one, or more localization protein motif elements, and (e) zero, one, or more independently selected protein linker elements, wherein when present, each of the protein linker elements is positioned between two of the elements of (a), (b), (c), and (d). In certain embodiments, the self-assembly protein elements include one or more of a polyhedron-forming protein, a coiled-coil forming protein, a supramolecular self-assembly protein, and a protein oligomer. In some embodiments, the polyhedron-forming protein is I3-01, O3-33, ATC-HL3, or 3VDX. In some embodiments, the coiled-coil forming protein is HexCoil-Ala, 5H2L_2, EE, or RR. In some embodiments, the supramolecular self-assembly protein is 2AN9 or 1M3U. In certain embodiments, the protein oligomer is 5L6HC3_1 or 2L8HC4_15. In some embodiments, when present, the epitope tag elements includes one or more of an Xpress tag, an HA tag, and a V5 tag, an OLLAS tag, a VSVg tag, an S1 (Strep I) tag, an NWS (Strep II) tag, an E epitope (E tag), a FLAG tag, an E2 tag, an AU1 tag, an AU5 tag, an Myc tag, a Spot tag, a NE tag, an AviTag, a C-tag, a Calmodulin-tag, a polyglutamate tag, an Rho1D4-tag, an S-tag, an SBP-tag, a Softag 1, a Softag 3, a TC tag, and a Ty tag. In certain embodiments, the localization protein motif element includes one or more of a subcellular localization protein and a trafficking protein. In some embodiments, the localization protein motif element includes one or more of a nucleus localization motif, a plasma membrane localization motif, and a synapse localization motif. In some embodiments, when present the protein linker elements include one or more glycine-rich linkers. In some embodiments, the glycine-rich linkers include one or more of: a GSG linker, a (GGSGGT)×2 linker, a (GGSGGT)×4 linker, a (GGSGGSGGT)×3 linker, a (GGGS)×2 linker, and a (GGGS)×4 linker. In certain embodiments, when present the protein linker elements includes one or more non-glycine-rich linkers. In some embodiments, the non-glycine-rich linkers include one of (EAAAK)×2 and APAPAP. In some embodiments, when two or more protein linker elements are present they include at least one each of a glycine rich linker and a non-glycine rich linker. In certain embodiments, the independently selected reporter protein element is a voltage indicator polypeptide, a calcium indicator polypeptide, a potassium indicator polypeptide, a pH indicator polypeptide, or a magnesium indicator polypeptide. In some embodiments, the independently selected reporter protein element is GCaMP6, GCaMP6f, GCaMP6m, GCaMP6s, jGCaMP7, jGCaMP7f, jGCaMP7m, jGCaMP7s, jGCaMP7b, jGCaMP7c, GCaMP-X, jRGECO1, jRCaMP1, NIRGECO, BCaMP, ICUE, ICUE3, cAMPr, Epac-based cAMP indicator, AKAR, AKAR4, ExRai-AKAR, ExRai-AKAR2, CKAR, ExRai-CKAR, EKARev, or RAB-EKARev. In certain embodiments, the independently selected reporter protein element is a GCaMP6f polypeptide or an ICUE3 polypeptide.

According to another aspect of the invention a cell that includes any embodiment of an aforementioned composition.

According to another aspect of the invention, a cell that includes two or more of any embodiments of an aforementioned composition are provided and one or more of the elements of (a)-(e) are different in each of the two or more of the compositions.

According to another aspect of the invention a cell is provided that includes one or more of an embodiment of a composition for RNA-protein-binding-based (RPB) clustering of independently selected reporter molecules in a cell and one or more of an embodiment of a composition for protein self-assembly (PSA) based clustering of independently selected reporter molecules in a cell.

According to another aspect of the invention, a method of determining a physiological process in a cell is provided, the method including (a) expressing in a cell a plurality of each of two or more independently selected reporter protein elements each capable of generating an identifiable signal; (b) forming one or more clusters from the plurality of the two or more independently selected reporter protein elements in the cell, wherein each of the two or more independently selected reporter protein elements are in different clusters; (c) positioning the one or more formed clusters in the cell such that a distance between a cluster formed with one of the independently selected reporter protein elements and a cluster formed with another of the independently selected reporter protein elements is sufficient to (i) resolve the signal generated by the two independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned clusters and (ii) simultaneously determine the signal generated by each of the independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned clusters; (d) detecting the identifiable signals generated from the independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned clusters; and (e) analyzing the detected signals to determine one or more physiological processes of the cell. In some embodiments, the signals generated by the two or more independently selected reporter protein elements include fluorescent signals. In certain embodiments, at least two of the fluorescent reporter protein elements generate spectrally overlapping signals. In some embodiments, the analyzing includes assessing two or more different physiological processes in the cell. In some embodiments, the analyzing includes assessing two or more simultaneous physiological processes in the cell. In some embodiments, the physiological process includes one or more of: pH of the cell, voltage in the cell, and the presence of one or more of: calcium, magnesium, chloride, and potassium in the cell. In certain embodiments, the method also includes externally stimulating the cell that includes the positioned clusters and determining the signals generated by the independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned clusters. In some embodiments, the externally stimulating includes contacting the cell with one or more of: forskolin, Tetradecanoylphorbol acetate (PMA), (S)-3,5-Dihydroxyphenylglycine (DHPG), N-Methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA), a cancer therapeutic agent, an antibody or active fragment thereof, a toxin, an agonist of a receptor, an antagonist of a receptor, an electrical field, a magnetic field, light, gas, a temperature change, a gravity change, a pH change, a whole-cell patch clamp. In some embodiments, the method does not include externally stimulating the cell that includes the positioned clusters and determining the signals generated by the independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned clusters. In some embodiments, the physiological process includes one or more of: a function of the cell, a response of the cell, ion flux in the cell, a therapeutic response of the cell; and an activation of the cell. In certain embodiments, the method also includes (f) repeating steps (d)-(e) for two or more different clusters formed from the two or more independently selected reporter protein elements each capable of generating an identifiable signal and positioned as in step (c). In some embodiments, the distance between the cluster formed with one of the independently selected reporter protein elements and the cluster formed with the other of the independently selected reporter protein elements is about 1-2 microns, 1-3 microns, 1-4 microns, 1-5 microns, 1-6 microns, 1-7 microns, or 1-8 microns. In some embodiments, the distance between the cluster formed with one of the independently selected reporter protein elements and the cluster formed with the other of the independently selected reporter protein elements is 2-8 microns. In certain embodiments, the signals generated by the independently selected reporter protein elements are detected with one or more of: video microscopy, computerized microscopic imaging, fluorescence microscopy, and confocal microscopy, light microscopy, light microscopy, light sheet microscopy, light field microscopy, and endoscopy. In some embodiments, the analyzing includes one or more of: live cell imaging, immunostaining, RNA FISH, live cell recording, an immunostaining method, an in situ hybridization method, determining fluorescence intensity, subtracting background fluorescence, a cluster/puncta localization means, an expansion microscopy means, a fluorescence microscopy means, a light microscopy means, and a fluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopy means. In certain embodiments, the cell is in, or has been obtained from, a cell culture, tissue culture, or a subject. In some embodiments, the cell is a vertebrate cell. In some embodiments, the cell is a human cell. In certain embodiments, the cell also includes two or more of any embodiment of an aforementioned composition for RNA-protein-binding-based (RPB) clustering of independently selected reporter molecules and one or more of the elements (i)-(v) and the RNA binding sequences are different in each of the two or more of the composition. In some embodiments, the two or more of the composition each form and position the clusters of different independently selected reporter protein elements. In some embodiments, the cell also includes two or more of any embodiment of an aforementioned composition for protein self-assembly (PSA) based clustering of independently selected reporter molecules and one or more of the elements of (a)-(e) are different in each of the two or more of the composition. In certain embodiments, the two or more of the composition each form and position the clusters of different independently selected reporter protein elements. In some embodiments, the cell includes one or more of one or more of any embodiment of an aforementioned composition for RNA-protein-binding-based (RPB) clustering of independently selected reporter molecules in a cell and one or more of any embodiment of an aforementioned composition for protein self-assembly (PSA) based clustering of independently selected reporter molecules in a cell.

According to another aspect of the invention, a method of identifying an effect of a candidate agent on a physiological process in a cell is provided, the method including: (a) preparing a cell that includes one or more of any embodiment of an aforementioned composition for protein self-assembly (PSA) based clustering of independently selected reporter molecules, wherein the prepared cell includes formed and positioned clusters of the independently selected reporter protein element; (b) contacting the prepared cell with a candidate agent; (c) detecting the identifiable signals generated from the independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned clusters; (d) analyzing the detected signals to determine one or more physiological processes of the contacted cell; and (e) comparing the determined physiological process of the contacted cell with the determined physiological process of a control cell, wherein a difference identifies an effect of the candidate agent on a physiological process in the contacted cell. In some embodiments, the control cell is a cell including the composition but not contacted with the candidate agent. In certain embodiments, the cell includes two or more of the compositions and one or more of the elements of (a)-(e) are different in each of the two or more of the compositions. In some embodiments, the two or more of the composition each form and position the clusters of different independently selected reporter protein elements. In some embodiments, the candidate agent is one or more of a pharmaceutical agent, an electrical agent, a magnetic agent, a temperature change agent, an environmental agent, and a therapeutic agent.

According to another aspect of the invention, a method of identifying an effect of a candidate agent on a physiological process in a cell is provided, the method including (a) preparing a cell that includes one or more of any embodiment of an aforementioned composition for RNA-protein-binding-based (RPB) clustering of independently selected reporter molecules and one or more of any embodiment of an aforementioned composition for protein self-assembly (PSA) based clustering of independently selected reporter molecules, and the prepared cell includes formed and positioned clusters of the independently selected reporter protein elements; (b) contacting the prepared cell with a candidate agent; (c) detecting the identifiable signals generated from the independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned clusters; (d) analyzing the detected signals to determine one or more physiological processes of the contacted cell; and (e) comparing the determined physiological process of the contacted cell with the determined physiological process of a control cell, wherein a difference identifies an effect of the candidate agent on a physiological process in the contacted cell. In certain embodiments, the control cell is a cell includes the two or more compositions but is not contacted with the candidate agent. In some embodiments, the cell includes two or more of any embodiment of an aforementioned composition for RNA-protein-binding-based (RPB) clustering of independently selected reporter molecules and one or more of the elements of (i)-(vi) are different in each of the two or more of the composition. In some embodiments, the two or more of the composition each form and position the clusters of different independently selected reporter protein elements. In certain embodiments the cell includes two or more of any embodiment of an aforementioned composition for protein self-assembly (PSA) based clustering of independently selected reporter molecules, and one or more of the elements of (a)-(e) are different in each of the two or more of the composition. In some embodiments, the two or more of the composition each form and position the clusters of different independently selected reporter protein elements. In certain embodiments, the candidate agent is one or more of a pharmaceutical agent, an electrical agent, a magnetic agent, a temperature change agent, an environmental agent, and a therapeutic agent. In some embodiments, the cell includes two or more of any embodiment of an aforementioned composition for RNA-protein-binding-based (RPB) clustering of independently selected reporter molecules and one or more of the elements of (i)-(vi) are different in each of the two or more of the composition and the cell also includes two or more of any embodiment of an aforementioned composition for protein self-assembly (PSA) based clustering of independently selected reporter molecules, and one or more of the elements of (a)-(e) are different in each of the two or more of the composition. In some embodiments, the two or more of the composition each form and position the clusters of different independently selected reporter protein elements. In certain embodiments, the candidate agent is one or more of a pharmaceutical agent, an electrical agent, a magnetic agent, a temperature change agent, an environmental agent, and a therapeutic agent.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1A-D presents a schematic diagram illustrating how spatial multiplexing of signals can increase the number of physiological signals simultaneously imaged in a single cell. FIG. 1A shows a schematic illustrating that by clustering fluorescent reporters of different cellular signals at distinct points in space, which are distant enough to be resolved by a microscope but close enough to spatially sample the relevant biology, multiple fluorescent reporters (left panel) even with identical fluorescent spectra (middle panel) can be simultaneously imaged in a single cell, followed by post hoc reconstruction of sensor identity in fixed cells via epitope immunostaining, RNA FISH, or other highly multiplexed fixed cell imaging methods (right panels). Green dots, live cell appearance of puncta formed by clustered fluorescent reporters distributed throughout a cell (represented as a shape enclosed by curved black lines); black boxes, regions-of-interest (ROIs) for time course measurements; green traces, time course measurements of fluorescent signals from ROIs obtained during live cell imaging; red and blue dots, identification of fluorescent reporter identity by highly multiplexed fixed cell imaging methods (e.g., immunostaining); red and blue traces, the fluorescent signal time courses, now annotated with sensor identity. FIG. 1B shows a schematic illustrating how fluorescent reporter clustering, and thus spatial multiplexing, could be achieved by assembling different fluorescent reporters on distinct RNA scaffolds. FIG. 1C shows a schematic illustrating how fluorescent reporter clustering, and thus spatial multiplexing, could be achieved by assembling different fluorescent reporters onto distinct scaffolds via self-assembling proteins motifs. FIG. 1D shows another schematic illustrating how fluorescent reporter clustering, and thus spatial multiplexing, could be achieved by assembling different fluorescent reporters onto distinct scaffolds via self-assembling proteins motifs.

FIG. 2A-G presents schematic diagrams, photomicrographs, and plots showing the results of experiments assembling different fluorescent sensors onto distinct RNA scaffolds in mammalian cells. FIG. 2A shows schematic diagrams of the designs of the sensor vectors (MS2 protein with GCaMP6f, or MP-GCaMP6f; PP7 protein with ICUE3, or PP-ICUE3) and the scaffold vectors (MS2 RNA scaffold, MR-SF; PP7 RNA scaffold, PR-SF). UBC, ubiquitin C promoter; CAG, CMV early enhancer/chicken β actin promoter; NLS, SV40 nuclear localization sequence; HA, influenza hemagglutinin epitope; V5, simian virus 5-derived epitope; tdMCP, tandem dimer MS2 coat protein; tdPCP, tandem dimer PP7 coat protein; MBS, MS2 binding site; PBS, PP7 binding site; Actb UTR, 3′ untranslated region of mouse β actin mRNA (nucleotides 1-441); STOP, stop codon; WPRE, woodchuck hepatitis virus posttranscriptional regulatory element. FIG. 2B shows representative images of live HeLa cells transfected with MP-GCaMP6f transfected alone (left), with the corresponding scaffold vector MR-SF (middle), or with PR-SF (right). Scale bars, 10 μm throughout this figure. FIG. 2C shows a box plot of the number of cytosolic fluorescent puncta per cell from the transfected HeLa cells described in FIG. 2B (n=9 cells from 3 cultures for MP-GCaMP6f only; n=18 cells from 9 cultures for MP-GCaMP6f+MR-SF; n=11 cells from 5 cultures for MP-GCaMP6f+PR-SF); Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Dunn's multiple comparison test. For all box plots used herein and in subsequent figures: middle horizontal line, median; top and bottom horizontal lines, 25% and 75% percentiles; top and bottom whiskers, minimum and maximum values unless specifically noted otherwise in figure description; hollow circles, individual values. FIG. 2D shows representative images of live HeLa cells transfected with PP-ICUE3 alone (left), with MR-SF (middle), or with the corresponding scaffold vector PR-SF (right). FIG. 2E shows a box plot of the number of cytosolic fluorescent puncta per cell from the transfected HeLa cells described in FIG. 2D (n=28 cells from 5 cultures for PP-ICUE3 only; n=35 cells from 5 cultures for PP-ICUE3+MR-SF; n=38 cells from 11 cultures for PP-ICUE3+PR-SF); Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Dunn's multiple comparison test. FIG. 2F shows representative images of fixed HeLa cells co-transfected with MP-GCaMP6f and MR-SF or PP-GCaMP6f and PR-SF after RNA FISH against the expressed mRNA from MR-SF (“MR FISH”) or PR-SF (“PR FISH”). FIG. 2G shows a box plot of the percentage of sensor puncta that also bear RNA FISH puncta per cell (n=19 cells from 4 cultures for MP-GCaMP6f and MR-SF; n=22 cells from 5 cultures for PP-ICUE3 and PR-SF); Wilcoxon rank sum test. For FIG. 2A-G, Table 1 lists motif sequences, Table 2 lists all tested constructs, Tables 3, 4, 5, provide statistical information for FIGS. 2C, 2E, and 2G, respectively, ***, P<0.001; n.s., not significant.

FIG. 3A-B presents schematic diagrams for fluorescent sensors and RNA scaffolds and photomicrographs of the results of assembling fluorescent sensors onto RNA scaffolds with the LambdaN22 RNA/RNA-binding-protein pair system in mammalian cells. Results related to FIG. 2. FIG. 3A shows schematic diagrams of the construct designs of the sensor vectors (LambdaN22 protein with GCaMP6f, or LP-GCaMP6f; LambdaN22 protein with AKAR4, or LP-AKAR4) and the scaffold vector (LambdaN22 RNA scaffold, LR-SF). UBC, ubiquitin C promoter; CAG, CMV early enhancer/chicken β actin promoter; LNP, LambdaN22 protein; NLS, SV40 nuclear localization sequence; HA, influenza hemagglutinin epitope; FLAG, synthetic peptide FLAG epitope; BoxB, LambdaN22 binding site; Actb UTR, 3′ untranslated region of mouse β actin mRNA (nucleotides 1-441); STOP, stop codon; WPRE, woodchuck hepatitis virus posttranscriptional regulatory element (Table 1, motif sequences; Table 2, all tested constructs). FIG. 3B shows representative images of live HeLa cells transfected with LP-GCaMP6f only, LP-GCaMP6f+LR-SF, LP-AKAR4+LR-SF, LP-GCaMP6f+MR-SF, LP-GCaMP6f+PR-SF, or PP-GCaMP6f+LR-SF. Scale bar, 20 μm.

FIG. 4A-I presents graphs describing the functional characterization of fluorescent sensors assembled into puncta by RNA scaffolds in mammalian cells. FIG. 4A shows representative fluorescent signals recorded during live cell imaging from three HeLa cells expressing GCaMP6f (left) and from three sensor puncta from three different HeLa cells expressing MP-GCaMP6f and MR-SF (right), after 10 mM CaCl₂stimulation. dF/F0, fluorescence change in the GFP channel. FIG. 4B shows a box plot of the peak fluorescence change from the HeLa cells described in FIG. 4A under 10 mM CaCl₂stimulation (n=44 cells from 2 cultures for GCaMP6f; n=39 cells from 5 cultures for MP-GCaMP6f and MR-SF); Wilcoxon rank sum test. FIG. 4C shows a box plot of the signal-to-noise ratio (with noise defined as the standard deviation of the baseline pre-stimulus throughout this paper) from the HeLa cells described in FIG. 4A under 10 mM CaCl2 stimulation (n=44 cells from 2 cultures for GCaMP6f; n=39 cells from 5 cultures for MP-GCaMP6f and MR-SF); Wilcoxon rank sum test. FIG. 4D shows representative fluorescent signals recorded during live cell imaging from 3 HeLa cells expressing ICUE3 (left) and from 3 sensor puncta from 3 different HeLa cells expressing PP-ICUE3 and PR-SF (right), after 20 μM forskolin stimulation. d(C/Y)/(C/Y), change of the fluorescence ratio between CFP channel and YFP channel. FIG. 4E shows a box plot of the peak fluorescence change from the transfected HeLa cells described in FIG. 4D under 20 μM forskolin stimulation (n=27 cells from 3 cultures for ICUE3; n=14 cells from 7 cultures for PP-ICUE3 and PR-SF); Wilcoxon rank sum test. FIG. 4F shows a box plot of the signal-to-noise ratio from the HeLa cells described in FIG. 4D under 20 μM forskolin stimulation (n=27 cells from 3 cultures for ICUE3; n=14 cells from 7 cultures for PP-ICUE3 and PR-SF); Wilcoxon rank sum test). FIG. 4G shows a graph of the mean squared displacement of the sensor puncta locations in live HeLa cells expressing MP-GCaMP6f and MR-SF (red) or PP-ICUE3 and PR-SF (blue) versus time (n=314 puncta from 14 cells from 6 cultures for MP-GCaMP6f and MR-SF; n=678 puncta from 14 cells from 7 cultures for PP-ICUE3 and PR-SF. Red and blue lines, mean; red and blue shaded boundaries, standard deviation. FIG. 4H shows a box plot of the diffusion coefficients of the sensor puncta in FIG. 3G (Wilcoxon rank sum test); top and bottom whiskers represent 10^thand 90^thpercentiles; individual values not shown. FIG. 4I shows a histogram of the distances between one puncta and its nearest-neighbor punctum in HeLa cells expressing MP-GCaMP6f and MR-SF or PP-ICUE3 and PR-SF (n=142 puncta from 5 cells from 5 cultures for MP-GCaMP6f and MR-SF; n=254 puncta from 5 cells from 5 cultures for PP-ICUE3 and PR-SF). Table 6 provides full statistics for FIGS. 4B, C, E, F, and H; n.s., not significant.

FIG. 5A-H presents photomicrographs and graphs of the results of experiments examining Cytosolic Ca2⁺ and cAMP responses in HeLa cells at different subcellular locations. Related to FIG. 4. FIG. 5A shows a representative image of live HeLa cells expressing GCaMP6f. Orange squares, regions-of-interest (ROIs) for fluorescent signal measurement throughout this figure. Scale bars, 20 μm throughout this figure. FIG. 5B shows representative images of live HeLa cells expressing MP-GCaMP6f+MR-SF and stained with NucBlue against the cell nucleus. FIG. 5C shows graphs of fluorescent signals recorded during live cell imaging from 2 HeLa cells expressing GCaMP6f under 10 mM CaCl2 stimulation at t=120 s. Throughout this figure: dF/F0, fluorescence change in the GFP channel; Location 1, the fluorescent signal from a random 1 μm2 ROI in the cytosol; Location 2, the fluorescent signal from a 1 μm2 ROI that was 5 μm away from Location 1; Location 3, the fluorescent signal from a 1 μm2 ROI that was 15 μm away from Location 1; average, the fluorescent signal averaged from the three fluorescent signals above. FIG. 5D shows graphs of fluorescent signals recorded during live cell imaging from 2 HeLa cells expressing MP-GCaMP6f+MR-SF under 10 mM CaCl2 stimulation at t=120 s. Throughout this figure: Punctum 1, the fluorescent signal from a random punctum in the cytosol; Punctum 2, the fluorescent signal from a punctum that was 5 μm away from Punctum 1; Punctum 3, the fluorescent signal from a punctum that was 15 μm away from Punctum 1; average, the fluorescent signal averaged from the three fluorescent signals above. FIG. 5E shows a representative image of live HeLa cells expressing ICUE3. FIG. 5F shows representative images of live HeLa cells expressing PP-ICUE3+PR-SF and stained with NucBlue against the cell nucleus. FIG. 5G shows graphs of fluorescent signals recorded during live cell imaging from 2 HeLa cells expressing ICUE3 under 20 μM forskolin stimulation at t=120 s. Throughout this figure: d(C/Y)/(C/Y), change of the fluorescence ratio between CFP channel and YFP channel. FIG. 5H shows graphs of fluorescent signals recorded during live cell imaging from 2 HeLa cells expressing PP-ICUE3+PR-SF under 20 μM forskolin stimulation at t=120 s.

FIG. 6A-E presents photomicrographs and graphs reporting the results of spatially multiplexed simultaneous imaging of Ca²⁺ and cAMP in mammalian cells using spectrum-overlapping fluorescent sensors clustered by RNA scaffolds. FIG. 6A shows representative images (top row) of HeLa cells quadruply transfected with MP-GCaMP6f, MR-SF, PP-ICUE3, and PR-SF (MP-GCaMP6f, PP-ICUE3 shown in green), and then fixed and immunostained against HA epitope (anti-HA, red) and V5 epitope (anti-V5, blue); scale bar, 10 μm. The bottom row shows enlarged images of the regions highlighted by yellow boxes in the top row; scale bar, 1 μm. FIG. 6B shows a box plot of the percentage of the puncta of the indicated sensor that did not contain the other type of sensor, per cell, as identified by dual immunostaining (n=9 cells from 5 cultures, each; Wilcoxon rank sum test). FIG. 6C shows graphs of fluorescent signals recorded from live HeLa cells co-transfected with MP-GCaMP6f, MR-SF, PP-ICUE3, and PR-SF after 10 mM CaCl2 stimulation at t=2 min (n=9 cells from 7 cultures). Red traces, dF/F0 (%) of a single punctum in the cell that was identified as clustered GCaMP6f by post hoc immunostaining; blue traces, d(C/Y)/(C/Y) (%) of a punctum in the cell that was identified as clustered ICUE3 by post hoc immunostaining. FIG. 6D shows a scatterplot of the peak fluorescent responses of the cells in FIG. 6C after 10 mM CaCl2 stimulation (n=9 cells from 7 cultures). FIG. 6E shows graphs of fluorescent signals recorded from live HeLa cells co-transfected with MP-GCaMP6f, MR-SF, PP-ICUE3, and PR-SF under 20 μM forskolin stimulation at t=2 min and then 10 mM CaCl2 stimulation at t=5 min (n=4 cells from 2 cultures). Red traces, dF/F0 (%) of a punctum in the cell that was identified as assembled GCaMP6f by post hoc immunostaining; blue traces, d(C/Y)/(C/Y) (%) of a punctum in the cell that was identified as assembled ICUE3 by post hoc immunostaining. For FIG. 6A-E, full statistics for FIG. 6B are provided in Table 7; n.s., not significant.

FIG. 7A-C presents photomicrographs of RNA scaffolds capable of assembling fluorescent proteins into spatially separated puncta in neurons but not capable of assembling fluorescent sensor GCaMP6f into resolvable puncta in neurons. Related to FIG. 6. FIG. 7A shows representative images of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing MP-mRuby2, PP-GFP, MR-SF, and PR-SF, with miRFP as a morphological marker. Orange rectangles, ROIs that are enlarged in the panels on the right; white arrows, spatially separated red and green puncta; scale bars, 10 μm. FIG. 7B shows representative images of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing MP-GCaMP6f and MR-SF. Scale bar, 20 μm. FIG. 7C shows representative images of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing PP-GCaMP6f and PR-SF. Scale bar, 20 μm.

FIG. 8A-X provides graphs and traces demonstrating design and characterization of fluorescent reporters clustered by protein scaffolds in neurons. (FIG. 8A) Construct design of S1-GCaMP6f. GCaMP6f, GFP-based fluorescent calcium reporter; HexCoil-Ala, a homo-tetramer; Xpress, epitope; I3-01, self-assembling subunit of I3-01 dodecahedron (60-mer); AA, amino acid (see Table 1 for sequences of the motifs; see Table 2 for all tested constructs). (FIG. 8B) Representative confocal image of live cultured mouse hippocampal neuron expressing GCaMP6f. Scale bar, 20 μm throughout this figure. (FIG. 8C) Representative confocal image of live cultured mouse hippocampal neuron expressing S1-GCaMP6f and miRFP as a cell morphology marker. (FIG. 8D) Representative fluorescent signals recorded from the soma, proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma throughout this figure), and distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma throughout this figure) of a cultured mouse hippocampal neuron expressing GCaMP6f (left) or S1-GCaMP6f (right) in response to a single action potential (1 AP) at t=5 s triggered by current injection via whole-cell patch clamp at the soma. dF/F0, fluorescence changes in the GFP channel. Each fluorescent signal for the clustered fluorescent reporter was measured from a single punctum, throughout this paper, unless otherwise specified. (E) Bar plot of the peak fluorescence changes in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f in response to a single action potential (n=11 values from soma, 22 values from proximal neurites, and 22 values from distal neurites from 11 total trials from 6 neurons from 3 cultures for each of GCaMP6f and S1-GCaMP6f; for each trial, the calcium responses from the soma and two proximal neurites and two distal neurites were analyzed). Bar plots of medians with interquartile ranges are used throughout this paper, with individual values plotted as dots. n.s., not significant; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test; see Tables 11-13, 30-32, and 41-43 for full statistics for FIG. 8. (FIG. 8F) Signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites for the neurons of FIG. 8E. Noise is defined as standard deviation of pre-stimulus baseline throughout this paper. (FIG. 8G) Half rise time and half decay time of reported calcium transients at the soma, for the neurons of FIG. 8E. (FIG. 8H) Violin plots of puncta size (left), distance to the nearest punctum (middle), and diffusion constant over 1 hour (right), for puncta of S1-GCaMP6f in neurons (n=349 puncta from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for puncta size and distance to the nearest punctum; n=63 puncta from 1 neuron from 1 culture for diffusion constant). Red line, median; black line, interquartile ranges. (FIG. 8I-K) As in FIG. 8A-C, but for S2-cAMPr. cAMPr, GFP-based fluorescent cAMP reporter; 1M3U, self-assembling subunit of 1M3U filament assembly; HA, influenza hemagglutinin epitope; 2L8HC4_15, a homo-tetramer; AA, amino acid. (FIG. 8L-N) As in FIG. 8D-F, but for neurons expressing cAMPr (or S2-cAMPr) together with miRFP, and stimulated with 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=10 s (n=11 somata, 22 proximal neurites, and 22 distal neurites from 11 neurons from 5 cultures for cAMPr; n=13 somata, 26 proximal neurites, and 26 distal neurites from 13 neurons from 6 cultures for S2-cAMPr). n.s., not significant; *, P<0.05. (FIG. 8O) Half rise time of reported cAMP signals at the soma, for the neurons of FIG. 8M. (FIG. 8P) As in FIG. 8H, but for S2-cAMPr (n=410 puncta from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for puncta size and distance to the nearest punctum; n=44 puncta from 1 neuron from 1 culture for diffusion constant). (FIG. 8Q-S) As in FIG. 8A-C, but for S3-ExRaiAKAR. ExRaiAKAR, GFP-based fluorescent PKA reporter; 3VDX, self-assembling subunit of 3VDX tetrahedron (12-mer); V5, simian virus 5-derived epitope; 5L6HC3_1, a homo-trimer; AA, amino acid. (FIG. 8T-V) As in FIG. 8A-C, but for neurons expressing ExRaiAKAR (or S3-ExRaiAKAR) together with miRFP, and stimulated with 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=1 min (n=5 somata, 10 proximal neurites, and 10 distal neurites from 5 neurons from 4 cultures for ExRaiAKAR; n=5 somata, 10 proximal neurites, and 10 distal neurites from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for S3-ExRaiAKAR). dR/R0, changes of fluorescence ratio between 488 nm excitation and 405 nm excitation when imaged in the GFP emission channel. n.s., not significant. (FIG. 8W) Half rise time of reported PKA signals at the soma, for the neurons of FIG. 8U. (FIG. 8X) As in FIG. 8H, but for S3-ExRaiAKAR (n=1125 puncta from 5 neurons from 4 cultures for puncta size and distance to the nearest punctum; n=63 puncta from 1 neuron from 1 culture for diffusion constant).

FIG. 9A-Z provides photomicrographic images, traces, and graphs illustrating further characterization of S1-GCaMP6f. Related to FIG. 8. (FIG. 9A-B) Representative fluorescent signals recorded from the soma, proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma throughout this figure), and distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma throughout this figure) of a cultured mouse hippocampal neuron expressing GCaMP6f (FIG. 9A) or S1-GCaMP6f (FIG. 9B) in response to a single action potential (1AP), 5 action potentials (5AP), 10 action potentials (10AP), and 20 action potentials (20AP) triggered by current injection via whole-cell patch clamp at the soma. dF/F0, fluorescence change in the GFP channel. Each fluorescent signal for S1-GCaMP6f was measured from a single punctum. (FIG. 9C) Bar plots of the peak fluorescence changes in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f in response to a single (n=11 values from soma, 22 values from proximal neurites, and 22 values from distal neurites from 11 total trials from 6 neurons from 3 cultures for each of GCaMP6f and S1-GCaMP6f; for each trial, the calcium responses from the soma and two proximal neurites and two distal neurites were analyzed) or multiple (5AP, 10AP, or 20AP; n=5 values from soma, 10 values from proximal neurites, and 10 values from distal neurites from 5 total trials from 5 neurons from 3 cultures for GCaMP6f; n=6 values from soma, 12 values from proximal neurites, and 12 values from distal neurites from 6 total trials from 6 neurons from 3 cultures for S1-GCaMP6f; for each trial, the calcium responses from the soma and two proximal neurites and two distal neurites were analyzed) action potentials. Bar plots of medians with interquartile ranges are used throughout this figure, with individual values plotted as dots. n.s., not significant; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test; see Tables 14-27 for full statistics for FIG. 9. (FIG. 9D) Bar plots of the signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites for the neurons of FIG. 9C. (FIG. 9E-H) Scatter plots of half rise time (FIG. 9E), half decay time (FIG. 9F), peak fluorescence change (FIG. 9G), and signal-to-noise ratio (FIG. 9H) versus the number of puncta at the soma, per cell, for the recorded somatic calcium transients in response to a single action potential in S1-GCaMP6f expressing neurons (n=6 neurons from 3 cultures). (FIG. 9I-L) Scatter plots of half rise time (FIG. 9I), half decay time (FIG. 9J), peak fluorescence change (K), and punctum size (FIG. 9L) versus punctum brightness for the recorded somatic calcium transients in response to a single action potential in S1-GCaMP6f expressing neurons (n=6 neurons from 3 cultures). (FIG. 9M-P) Bar plots of half rise time (FIG. 9M), half decay time (FIG. 9N), peak fluorescence change (FIG. 9O), and punctum brightness (FIG. 9P) versus somatic punctum size for the recorded somatic calcium transients in response to a single action potential in S1-GCaMP6f expressing neurons (n=6 neurons from 3 cultures). n.s., not significant; Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test with ‘<1 μm’ as control group. (FIG. 9Q) Bar plot of the number of somatic calcium peaks in response to a single action potential for GCaMP6f and S1-GCaMP6f expressing neurons of FIG. 9C. n.s., not significant; Wilcoxon rank sum test. FIG. 9 (FIG. 9R) Representative fluorescent signals recorded from the soma, proximal neurites, and distal of a cultured mouse hippocampal neuron expressing GCaMP6f and a neuron expressing S1-GCaMP6f, with 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=10 s. dF/F0, fluorescence changes in GFP channel. Each fluorescent signal for S1-GCaMP6f was measured from a single punctum. (S) Bar plot of the peak fluorescence changes in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f under 5 μM forskolin stimulation (n=6 somata, 12 proximal neurites, and 12 distal neurites from 6 neurons from 4 cultures for GCaMP6f; n=9 somata, 18 proximal neurites, and 18 distal neurites from 9 neurons from 9 cultures for S1-GCaMP6f). n.s., not significant; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test. (FIG. 9T) Bar plot of the signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites for the neurons of FIG. 9S. (FIG. 9U) Bar plot of the number of somatic calcium peaks 0-30 seconds after forskolin stimulation for the neurons of FIG. 9S. (FIG. 9V) Scatter plot of the number of S1-GCaMP6f reported somatic calcium spikes 0-30 seconds after forskolin stimulation versus somatic punctum size in S1-GCaMP6f expressing neurons (n=5 neurons from 5 cultures). (FIG. 9W-Z) Violin plots of the puncta size (FIG. 9W), distance to the nearest punctum (FIG. 9X), and puncta brightness (FIG. 9Y), and bar plot of number of puncta per cell (FIG. 9Z), for S1-GCaMP6f in neurons (n=792, 1314, 1230, 881, and 283 puncta in 9, 11, 11, 10, and 4 neurons from 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1 culture for 100 ng, 250 ng, 500 ng, 750 ng, and 1000 ng, respectively). Red line, median; black line, interquartile ranges; 100 ng, 250 ng, 500 ng, 750 ng, and 1000 ng, the mass of DNA of the SiRI construct used in calcium phosphate transfection per well in 24-well plates, with extra pUC19 dummy DNA added so that the total transfected DNA per well was 1500 ng; Dc was measured in live neurons 4 days after transfection on DIV 9; n.s., not significant; *, P<0.05; **, P<0.01; ***, P<0.001; Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test with ‘100 ng’ as control group. See Tables 14-27 for full statistics for FIG. 9.

FIG. 10A-Q provides photomicrographic images, traces, and graphs illustrating design of S2a-cAMPr and utilization for multiplexed SiRI imaging. Related to FIG. 8. (FIG. 10A) Construct design of S2a-cAMPr. O3-33, self-assembling subunit of O3-33 octahedron (24-mer); HA, influenza hemagglutinin epitope; 5H2L_2, a homo-pentamer; AA, amino acid (see Table 1 for sequences of the motifs; see Table 2 for all tested constructs). (FIG. 10B) A representative confocal image of a live cultured mouse hippocampal neuron expressing cAMPr. Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 10C) Representative confocal images of a live cultured mouse hippocampal neuron expressing S2a-cAMPr and miRFP as a cell morphology marker. Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 10D) Representative fluorescent signals recorded from the soma, proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma), and distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma) of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing cAMPr or S2a-cAMPr with 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=10 s. dF/F0, fluorescence changes in GFP channel. Each fluorescent signal for S2a-cAMPr was measured from a single punctum. FIG. 10 (FIG. 10E) Bar plot of the peak fluorescence changes in GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma), and distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma) of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing cAMPr or S2a-cAMPr after 5 μM forskolin stimulation (n=8 somata, 16 proximal neurites, and 16 distal neurites from 8 neurons from 5 cultures for cAMPr; n=13 somata, 26 proximal neurites, and 26 distal neurites from 13 neurons from 9 cultures for S2a-cAMPr). Bar plots of medians with interquartile ranges are used throughout this figure, with individual values plotted as dots. n.s., not significant; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Sidak's multiple comparisons test; see Tables 38-40 for full statistics for FIG. 10. (FIG. 10F) Signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites for the neurons of FIG. 10E. n.s., not significant; *, P<0.05. (FIG. 10G) Half rise time of reported cAMP signals at the soma, for the neurons of FIG. 10E. n.s., not significant. (FIG. 10H) A representative confocal image of live HeLa cells expressing S1-GCaMP6f, as well as the morphological marker miRFP, and stained with a live cell nuclear stain, NucBlue. Scale bars, 10 μm throughout this figure. (FIG. 10I) Representative fluorescent signal recorded during live cell imaging from the HeLa cell in FIG. 10H under 10 mM CaCl₂stimulation at t=120 s. Throughout this figure: dF/F0, fluorescence changes in the GFP channel. (FIG. 10J) A representative confocal image of a live HeLa cell expressing S2a-cAMPr, as well as the morphological marker miRFP, and stained with NucBlue. (FIG. 10K) Representative fluorescent signal recorded during live cell imaging from the HeLa cell in FIG. 10J under 20 μM forskolin stimulation at t=120 s. (FIG. 10L) Representative images of HeLa cells co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f and S2a-cAMPr. All images in FIG. 10L were taken after fixation, immunostaining against the Xpress epitope and HA epitope, and DAPI staining against the cell nucleus. (FIG. 10M) Representative confocal images of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, and the morphological marker miRFP (first three panels in the top row) and after fixation, immunostaining (with anti-Xpress to mark GCaMP6f and anti-HA to mark cAMPr), and DAPI staining to mark the cell nucleus (the remaining five panels). Yellow rectangle, boundary of the region shown in enlarged view in N. White square, boundary of the soma region shown in the enlarged view in the right most panel in the bottom row. All scale bars, 20 μm. (FIG. 10N) Enlarged views of the neurite region in the yellow rectangle in FIG. 10M. Arrows indicate the regions-of-interest (ROIs) of individual puncta whose fluorescent signal time courses are plotted in FIG. 10 O. Scale bar, 5 μm. (FIG. 10O) Recorded fluorescent signals at the soma and the ROIs along the neurite marked in FIG. 10N during live cell imaging with 5 μM forskolin stimulation. (FIG. 10P) Box plot of the number of soma-localized or neurite-localized S1-GCaMP6f or S2a-cAMPr puncta per cell identified by immunostaining in neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, and miRFP (n=6 neurons from 6 cultures). Box plots throughout this figure: middle horizontal line, median; top and bottom horizontal lines, 25% and 75% percentiles; top and bottom whiskers, minimum and maximum values; hollow circles, individual values. (FIG. 10Q) Box plot of the percentage of the soma-localized or neurite-localized fluorescent reporter puncta that did not contain the other type of reporter, per cell, as identified by immunostaining in neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, and miRFP (n=6 neurons from 6 cultures).

FIG. 11A-C provides photomicrographic images, traces, and graphs illustrating results from studies of spatially multiplexed imaging of three GFP-based reporters for calcium, cAMP, and PKA activities in a human cell line. Related to FIG. 3. (FIG. 11A) Maximum intensity projection (MIP) confocal images of HeLa cells co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and the cell morphological marker, miRFP. Live, images taken from live cell imaging; Fixed, images taken after fixation and immunostaining against Xpress (magenta), HA (cyan), and V5 (yellow). Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 11B) Recorded fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), and PKA (yellow) activities of individual HeLa cells under forskolin stimulation by pipetting 100 μL of 100 μM forskolin in FluoroBrite DMEM dropwise onto a HeLa cell culture in 1.9 mL FluoroBrite DMEM (for a 5 μM final concentration of forskolin applied to the HeLa cell culture) at t=2 min (n=4 cells co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP from 2 cultures). Ca²⁺ and cAMP signals are plotted as dF/F0 (fluorescence intensity change) and PKA signals are plotted as dR/R0 (change of fluorescence ratio between 488 nm excitation and 405 nm excitation when imaging in the GFP emission channel). (FIG. 11C) Averaged fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), and PKA (yellow) activities of HeLa cells shown in FIG. 11B (n=4 cells co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP from 2 cultures). Colored lines, mean; colored and shaded boundaries, standard error of mean.

FIG. 12A-I presents schematics, photomicrographs, and graphs reporting results of spatially multiplexed imaging of three GFP-based reporters for calcium, cAMP, and PKA activities at different subcellular locations in single neuron. Related to FIG. 13. (FIG. 12 A) Maximum intensity projection (MIP) confocal images of the live cultured mouse hippocampal neuron co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP shown in FIG. 13A. Upper left panel, under miRFP channel; upper right panel, under GFP channel; bottom panel, a composite image from GFP and miRFP channels. Orange squares, boundaries of the regions to be shown in enlarged views in FIG. 12B-F. Scale bars, 20 μm. (FIG. 12B-F) Top left, an enlarged view of the corresponding region marked in FIG. 12A (by the corresponding letter) under green channel. Top right, an MIP confocal image of the same region after fixation and immunostaining against Xpress (magenta), HA (cyan), and V5 (yellow). Bottom, recorded Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), and PKA (yellow) activities measured from puncta indicated by white arrowheads in the top right view during live cell imaging under 50 μM forskolin stimulation for 3 minutes. Scale bars, 2 μm. Note that FIG. 12E and FIG. 12C in this figure are identical to FIG. 13B and FIG. 13C, respectively. (FIG. 12G-I) Bar plots of Pearson correlation coefficients of the Ca²⁺ (FIG. 12G; n=8 neurons from 8 cultures), cAMP FIG. 12 (FIG. 12H; n=5 neurons from 5 cultures), or PKA (FIG. 12I; n=5 neurons from 5 cultures) responses recorded from soma- and neurite-localized puncta within single cultured mouse hippocampal neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP. Two puncta at the soma (or along a neurite) were defined to be adjacent if they were less than 5 μm apart, and as distant if they were at least 10 μm apart at the soma (or at least 20 μm apart along a neurite). Neurite-localized puncta in this analysis were 20-60 μm away from the soma. Bar plots of medians with interquartile ranges are used, with individual values plotted as dots. n.s., not significant; *, P<0.05; **, P<0.01; Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Dunn's multiple comparisons test with ‘two adjacent puncta at soma’ as control group; see Tables 46-48 for full statistics for FIG. 12.

FIG. 13A-L presents schematics, photomicrographs, and graphs reporting the results of spatially multiplexed imaging of three GFP-based reporters for calcium, cAMP, and PKA in single cultured neurons under forskolin stimulation. (FIG. 13A) Maximum intensity projection (MIP) confocal images of a representative live cultured mouse hippocampal neuron co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and the cell morphological marker, miRFP. Left panel, miRFP channel; right panel, GFP channel with high image contrast for better visualization of neurite-localized puncta. Yellow squares, enlarged in FIG. 13B-C. Scale bar, 20 μm. See FIG. 12 for more enlarged views of the neuron. (FIG. 13B) Top left, enlarged view of the soma region indicated in FIG. 13A with “B”, with reduced image contrast for less saturated pixels in this field of view. Top right, MIP confocal image of the same region after fixation and immunostaining against Xpress (magenta), HA (cyan), and V5 (yellow). Bottom, recorded Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), and PKA (yellow) activities measured from puncta indicated by white arrowheads in the top right view during live cell imaging after 3 min of 50 μM forskolin stimulation. Scale bar, 2 μm. (FIG. 13C) As in FIG. 13B, but for the neurite region indicated in FIG. 13A with “C”. (FIG. 13D) Bar plot of the number of soma-localized and neurite-localized puncta per cell identified by immunostaining of neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP (n=5 neurons from 5 cultures; counted in 3D volumes). (FIG. 13E) Bar plot of the percentage of the soma-localized or neurite-localized puncta of S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, or S3-ExRaiAKAR that did not contain the other types of reporters, per cell, for the neurons of FIG. 13D. (FIG. 13F) Violin plots of the puncta size (left) and distance to the nearest punctum (right) of all puncta in the GFP channel in live neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP (n=890 puncta from 5 neurons from 5 cultures). Red line, median; black line, interquartile ranges. (FIG. 13G) Averaged fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), and PKA activities (yellow) at the soma (left) and on a proximal neurite (right; puncta 20-60 μm away from soma) under 50 μM forskolin stimulation for 3 minutes (n=24 neurons from 16 cultures). Throughout this paper: colored centerlines, mean; colored, shaded boundaries, standard error of mean. (FIG. 13H) Somatic Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA activities from a representative neuron with a transient calcium response at the soma (left), and averaged somatic Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA activities from all neurons with transient calcium responses at the soma (right; n=7 neurons from 6 cultures) under 50 μM forskolin stimulation for 3 minutes. (FIG. 13I) As in FIG. 13H, but for neurons with sustained calcium responses at the soma (n=17 neurons from 12 cultures). (FIG. 13J) Averaged somatic Ca²⁺ activity from neurons with transient calcium responses at the soma (blue; n=7 neurons from 6 cultures) and from neurons with sustained calcium responses at the soma (red; n=17 neurons from 12 cultures). Thin and light colored lines, somatic Ca²⁺ activities from individual neurons. n.s., not significant; *, P<0.05; **, P<0.01; Wilcoxon rank sum tests for peak responses over indicated time windows (horizontal lines) and times to half rise (t_{1/2 rise}); see Tables 49-51 for full statistics for FIG. 13. (FIG. 13K) Averaged somatic cAMP activity for the neurons of FIG. 13J. n.s., not significant; *, P<0.05; Wilcoxon rank sum tests for rise slopes (arrow near the rise phase), decay slopes (arrow near the decay phase), and peak responses (horizontal line near the peak response). (FIG. 13L) Averaged somatic PKA activity for the neurons of FIG. 13J. *, P<0.05; ***, P<0.001; Wilcoxon rank sum tests for rise slopes (arrow near the rise phase) and peak responses (horizontal line near the peak response).

FIG. 14A-L presents schematics, photomicrographs, and graphs reporting the results of the spatially multiplexed imaging of Ca²⁺ and PKA activities via two GFP-based reporters in brain slice under forskolin stimulation. (FIG. 14A) Representative confocal images of hippocampus CA1 region in sagittal brain slices from mice co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and the cell morphological marker mRuby3-6×FLAG by hippocampus-targeted in utero electroporation. Scale bar, 200 μm. (FIG. 14B) Maximum intensity projection (MIP) confocal images of a representative live CA1 pyramidal neuron from mice co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f (green), S3-ExRaiAKAR (green), and the cell morphological marker mRuby3-6×FLAG (magenta). Yellow squares, boundaries of regions of interest (ROIs) shown in enlarged views in FIG. 14C. Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 14C) MW confocal images of the ROIs defined in FIG. 14B before (left; S1-GCaMP6f and S3-ExRaiAKAR in the GFP channel) and after (right; cyan, anti-Xpress; yellow, anti-V5) immunostaining. Scale bars, 2.5 μm. (FIG. 14D) Bar plot of the number of soma-localized, apical dendrite-localized, or basal dendrite-localized puncta of S1-GCaMP6f or S3-ExRaiAKAR per cell identified by immunostaining of brain slices from mice co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and mRuby3-6×FLAG (n=6 CA1 pyramidal neurons from 4 slices from 3 mice; counted in 3D volumes). Bar plots of medians with interquartile ranges are used throughout this figure, with individual values plotted as dots. (FIG. 14E) Bar plot of the percentage of the soma-localized, apical dendrite-localized, or basal dendrite-localized puncta of S1-GCaMP6f or S3-ExRaiAKAR that did not contain the other type of reporter, per cell, for the neurons of FIG. 14D. (FIG. 14F) Violin plots of punctum size (left) and distance to the nearest punctum (right), for all puncta in the GFP channel in live CA1 pyramidal neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and mRuby3-6×FLAG in acute brain slices (n=479 puncta from 5 CA1 pyramidal neurons from 3 slices from 3 mice). Red line, median; black line, interquartile ranges. (FIG. 14G) Representative fluorescent signals for Ca²⁺ (cyan) and PKA (yellow) activities at the soma (left), at a location on the apical dendrite (middle), and at a location on the basal dendrite (right) of CA1 pyramidal neurons before, during, and after a 15-min-long 50 μM forskolin stimulation. Each fluorescent signal was measured from a single punctum. (FIG. 14H) Averaged fluorescent signals at the soma (left), at a location on the apical dendrite (middle; sampled at locations 30-100 μm away from soma throughout this figure), and at a location on the basal dendrite (right; sampled at locations 10-40 μm away from soma throughout this figure) obtained as in FIG. 14G (n=14 neurons from 6 slices from 3 mice). Throughout this figure: colored lines, mean; colored, shaded boundaries, standard error of mean. (FIG. 14I) Somatic Ca²⁺ and PKA activities from a representative neuron where the forskolin treatment induced a delayed somatic calcium response (left) and the averaged soma Ca²⁺ and PKA activities from all neurons with delayed somatic calcium responses (right; n=6 neurons from 5 slices from 3 mice). (FIG. 14J) As in FIG. 14J, but for neurons with immediate somatic calcium responses (right; n=6 neurons from 2 slices from 2 mice). (FIG. 14K) Averaged somatic Ca²⁺ activity from neurons with delayed somatic calcium responses (blue; n=6 neurons from 5 slices from 3 mice) and from neurons with immediate somatic calcium responses (red; n=6 neurons from 2 slices from 2 mice). n.s., not significant; **, P<0.01; Wilcoxon rank sum tests for peak responses over indicated time windows (horizontal lines) and times to half rise (t_{1/2 rise}); see Tables 74-75 for full statistics for FIG. 14. (FIG. 14L) Averaged somatic PKA activity from neurons of FIG. 14K. *, P<0.05; **, P<0.01; Wilcoxon rank sum tests for rise slopes (arrow near the rise phase), peak responses (horizontal line), and durations of PKA activation (arrow on the right hand side of the panel).

FIG. 15A-Q presents schematics, photomicrographs, and graphs reporting the results of the spatially multiplexed imaging of four GFP-based reporters for Ca²⁺, cAMP, PKA, and PKC activities in single cultured neurons. (FIG. 15A) Construct design of S4-ExRaiCKAR. ExRaiCKAR, a GFP-based fluorescent PKC reporter; I32-06B, self-assembling subunit B of I32-06 two-component icosahedron; OLLAS, E. coli OmpF linker and mouse langerin fusion sequence; I32-06A, self-assembling subunit A of I32-06 two-component icosahedron; AA, amino acid (see Table 1 for sequences of the motifs; see Table 2 for all tested constructs). (FIG. 15B) Representative confocal image of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiCKAR. Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 15C) Representative confocal image of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing S4-ExRaiCKAR and miRFP as a cell morphology marker. Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 15D) Representative fluorescent signals recorded from the soma, proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma throughout this figure), and distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma throughout this figure) of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiCKAR or S4-ExRaiCKAR under 100 ng/ml phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) stimulation at t=1 min. dF/F0, fluorescence changes in GFP channel. Each fluorescent signal for S4-ExRaiCKAR was measured from a single punctum. (FIG. 15E) Bar plot of the peak fluorescence changes in the GFP channel at the soma, and at locations along the proximal neurites and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiCKAR or S4-ExRaiCKAR under 100 ng/ml PMA stimulation (n=10 somata, 20 proximal neurites, and 20 distal neurites from 10 neurons from 4 cultures for ExRaiCKAR; n=11 somata, 22 proximal neurites, and 22 distal neurites from 11 neurons from 4 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR). n.s., not significant; ***, P<0.001; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test; see Tables 53-55 for full statistics for FIG. 15. (FIG. 15F) Signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites for the neurons of FIG. 15E. (FIG. 15G) Half rise time of reported PKC signals at the soma, for the neurons of FIG. 15E. (FIG. 15H) Violin plots of punctum size (left), distance to the nearest punctum (middle), and diffusion constant over 1 hour (right) for S4-ExRaiCKAR in neurons (n=1007 puncta from 5 neurons from 4 cultures for puncta size and distance to the nearest punctum; n=117 puncta from 2 neurons from 1 culture for diffusion constant). Red line, median; black line, interquartile ranges. (FIG. 15I) A maximum intensity projection (MW) confocal image in the miRFP channel of a representative live cultured mouse hippocampal neuron co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, S4-ExRaiCKAR, and the cell morphological marker miRFP. Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 15J) An MIP confocal image in the GFP channel of the same neuron shown in FIG. 15I. Orange rectangles, boundaries of the regions to be shown in enlarged views in FIG. 15K-L. (FIG. 15K) Top left, the enlarged view of the somatic region in FIG. 15J. Top right, an MIP confocal image of the same region after fixation and two rounds of immunostaining against HA (cyan) and OLLAS (red) in the first round and Xpress (magenta) and V5 (yellow) in the second round. Bottom, recorded fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), PKA (yellow), and PKC (red) activities measured from puncta indicated by white arrowheads in the top right view during live cell imaging under two stimulations, 50 forskolin for 3 minutes and 100 ng/mL PMA for 3 minutes. (FIG. 15L) As in FIG. 15K, but for the neuritic region in FIG. 15J. (FIG. 15M) Averaged fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), PKA (yellow), and PKC (red) activities at the soma under two stimulations, 50 forskolin for 3 minutes and 100 ng/mL PMA for 3 minutes (n=5 neurons from 5 cultures). Colored lines, mean; colored, shaded boundaries, standard error of mean. (FIG. 15N) As in FIG. 15M, but for neurite signals (from locations 20-60 μm away from the soma). (FIG. 15O) Bar plot of the number of soma-localized or neurite-localized puncta per cell for S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and S4-ExRaiCKAR identified by two rounds of immunostaining in neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, S4-ExRaiCKAR, and miRFP (n=5 neurons from 5 cultures; counted in 3D volumes). (FIG. 15P) Bar plot of the percentage of the soma-localized or neurite-localized puncta of S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, or S4-ExRaiCKAR that did not contain the other types of reporters, per cell, for the neurons of FIG. 15O. (FIG. 15Q) Violin plots of the puncta size (left) and distance to the nearest punctum (right) of all puncta in the GFP channel in live neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, S4-ExRaiCKAR, and miRFP (n=1612 puncta from 5 neurons from 5 cultures). Red line, median; black line, interquartile ranges.

FIG. 16A-K presents schematics, photomicrographs, and graphs reporting the results of the combined spatial and spectral multiplexing for simultaneous imaging of five signals within single neurons. (FIG. 16A) Construct design of S2-RAB EKARev. RAB EKARev, an RFP-based fluorescent ERK reporter; 1M3U, self-assembling subunit of 1M3U assembly; VSVg, vesicular stomatitis virus G protein fragment epitope; 2L8HC4_15, a homo-tetramer; AA, amino acid (see Table 1 for sequences of the motifs; see Table 2 for all tested constructs). (FIG. 16B) A representative confocal image of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing RAB_EKARev. Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 16C) Representative confocal image of a live cultured mouse hippocampal neuron expressing S2-RAB_EKARev and miRFP as a cell morphology marker. Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 16D) Representative fluorescent signals recorded from the soma, proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma throughout this figure), and distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma throughout this figure) of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing RAB_EKARev or S2-RAB_EKARev under 100 μM DHPG stimulation at t=2 min. dF/F0, fluorescence changes in RFP channel. Each fluorescent signal for S2-RAB_EKARev was measured from a single punctum. (FIG. 16E) Bar plot of the peak fluorescence changes in the RFP channel at the soma, and at locations along proximal neurites and distal neurites, of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing RAB_EKARev or S2-RAB_EKARev under 100 DHPG stimulation (n=5 somata, 10 proximal neurites, and 10 distal neurites from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for RAB_EKARev; n=5 somata, 10 proximal neurites, and 10 distal neurites from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for S2-RAB_EKARev). n.s., not significant; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test; see Tables 65-67 for full statistics for FIG. 16. (FIG. 16F) Signal-to-noise ratio in the RFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites for the neurons of FIG. 16E. (FIG. 16G) Half rise time of reported ERK signals at the soma, for the neurons of FIG. 16E. (FIG. 16H) Maximum intensity projection (MIP) confocal images in the miRFP channel (left), GFP channel (middle), and GFP and RFP channels merged (right), of a representative live cultured mouse hippocampal neuron co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, S4-ExRaiCKAR, S2-RAB_EKARev, and the cell morphological marker miRFP. Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 16I) A composite image from the registration between the MIP confocal image of the same neuron in FIG. 16H in the RFP channel before fixation and the MW confocal image of the same neuron after fixation and immunostaining against Xpress (magenta), V5 (yellow), and OLLAS (red). (FIG. 16J) Recorded fluorescent signals for Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), PKA (yellow), PKC (red), and ERK (green) activities at the soma (left) and neurites (right; 30 μm away from soma) of the same neuron in FIG. 16H under two stimulations, 100 μM DHPG for 3 minutes and 50 μM forskolin for 3 minutes. Each fluorescent signal was measured from a single punctum. (FIG. 16K) Averaged fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), PKA (yellow), PKC (red), and ERK (green) activities at the soma (left) and along neurites (right; 20-60 μm away from soma) under two stimulations, 100 μM DHPG for 3 minutes and 50 μM forskolin for 3 minutes (n=4 neurons from 3 cultures). Colored lines, mean; colored, shaded boundaries, standard error of mean.

FIG. 17A-W presents schematics, photomicrographs, and graphs reporting the results of the design and functional characterization of fluorescent sensors clustered by protein scaffolds in neurons. FIG. 17A shows a schematic diagram of the construct design of S1-GCaMP6f: Coil 1, homo-tetramer HexCoil-Ala; Xpress, synthetic peptide Xpress epitope; 13-01, self-assembling subunit of I3-01 dodecahedron (60-mer); O3-33, self-assembling subunit of O3-33 octahedron (24-mer); HA, influenza hemagglutinin epitope; Coil 2, homo-pentamer 5H2L_2; AA, amino acid. All motif sequences used in FIG. 17A-W are listed in Table 1; Table 2 lists all tested constructs. FIG. 17B shows a representative image of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f. Scale bar, 20 μm throughout this figure. FIG. 17C shows representative images of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing S1-GCaMP6f and miRFP as a cell morphology marker. FIG. 17D shows representative fluorescent signals recorded from the soma, proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma throughout this figure), and distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma throughout this figure) of a cultured mouse hippocampal neuron expressing GCaMP6f (left) or S1-GCaMP6f (right) in response to single action potential (1 AP) at t=5 s triggered by current injection via whole-cell patch clamp at the soma. dF/F0, fluorescence change in GFP channel. Each fluorescent signal for S1-GCaMP6f was measured from a single punctum. FIG. 5E shows a bar plot of the peak fluorescence change in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f in response to a single action potential. Bar plots of medians with interquartile ranges are used throughout this study, with individual values plotted as dots. Two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test. FIG. 17F shows a bar plot of the signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f in response to single action potential. n.s., not significant; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test. FIG. 17G shows representative fluorescent signals recorded from the soma, proximal neurites, and distal of a cultured mouse hippocampal neuron expressing GCaMP6f and a neuron expressing S1-GCaMP6f, with 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=10 s. Each fluorescent signal for S1-GCaMP6f was measured from a single punctum. FIG. 17H shows a bar plot of the peak fluorescence change in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f under 5 forskolin stimulation; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test. FIG. 17I shows a bar plot of the signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f under 5 μM forskolin stimulation. Two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test. FIG. 17J presents a schematic diagram showing the construct design of S2a-cAMPr: 1M3U, self-assembling subunit of 1M3U assembly; HA, influenza hemagglutinin epitope; 2L8HC4_15, a homo-tetramer; AA, amino acid. FIG. 17K shows a representative image of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing cAMPr. FIG. 17L shows representative images of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing S2a-cAMPr and miRFP as a cell morphology marker. FIG. 17M shows representative fluorescent signals recorded from the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing cAMPr or S2a-cAMPr under 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=10 s. dF/F0, fluorescence change in GFP channel. Each fluorescent signal for S2a-cAMPr was measured from a single punctum. FIG. 17N shows a bar plot of the peak fluorescence change in GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing cAMPr or S2a-cAMPr under 5 forskolin stimulation. n.s., not significant; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test. FIG. 17O shows a bar plot of the signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing cAMPr or S2a-cAMPr under 5 μM forskolin stimulation. n.s., not significant; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test. FIG. 17P shows a histogram of the distance to the nearest punctum for each soma-localized punctum in cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing S1-GCaMP6f or S2a-cAMPr. FIG. 17Q shows a histogram of the distance to the nearest punctum for each neurite-localized punctum in cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing S1-GCaMP6f or S2a-cAMPr. FIG. 17R presents a schematic diagram of the construct design of S3-ExRaiAKAR: 3VDX, self-assembling subunit of 3VDX tetrahedron (12-mer); V5, simian virus 5-derived epitope; 5L6HC3_1, a homo-trimer; AA, amino acid. FIG. 17S shows a representative image of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiAKAR. FIG. 17T shows representative images of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing S3-ExRaiAKAR and miRFP as a cell morphology marker. FIG. 17U shows representative fluorescent signals recorded from the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiAKAR (left panel) or S3-ExRaiAKAR (right panel) under 5 forskolin stimulation at t=1 min. dF/F0, fluorescence change in GFP channel. FIG. 17V shows a bar plot of the peak fluorescence change in GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiAKAR or S3-ExRaiAKAR under 5 μM forskolin stimulation; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test. FIG. 17W shows a bar plot of the signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiAKAR or S3-ExRaiAKAR under 5 μM forskolin stimulation; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test. Table 8 provides statistics for FIGS. 17E, F, H, and I; Table 9 provides statistics for FIG. 17H; Table 10 provides statistics for FIG. 17I; Table 35 provides statistics for FIG. 17N, O; Table 36 provides statistics for FIG. 17J; and Table 37 provides statistics for FIG. 17K.

FIG. 18A-G presents graphs of results of electrophysiological properties of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing SiRIs. Related to FIGS. 8 and 15. Bar plots of medians with interquartile ranges are used throughout this figure, with individual values plotted as dots. n.s., not significant; Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test with non-expressing neurons, labeled as ‘Negative’, as control group throughout the figure; see Tables 56-62 for full statistics for FIG. 18. (FIG. 18A) Resting potential. (FIG. 18B) Membrane resistance. (FIG. 18C) Membrane capacitance. (FIG. 18D) Holding current while held at −65 mV. (FIG. 18E) Action potential amplitude. (FIG. 18F) Action potential width. (FIG. 18G) Action potential threshold. For FIG. 18A-D, n=6 neurons from 4 cultures for Negative; n=6 neurons from 2 cultures for GCaMP6f; n=9 neurons from 5 cultures for S1-GCaMP6f; n=6 neurons from 4 cultures for S2-cAMPr; n=5 neurons from 3 cultures for S3-ExRaiAKAR; n=5 neurons from 3 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR; n=7 neurons from 3 cultures for S2a-cAMPr. For FIG. 18E-G, n=6 neurons from 2 cultures for Negative; n=6 neurons from 2 cultures for GCaMP6f; n=5 neurons from 3 cultures for S1-GCaMP6f; n=6 neurons from 4 cultures for S2-cAMPr; n=5 neurons from 3 cultures for S3-ExRaiAKAR; n=5 neurons from 3 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR; n=5 neurons from 3 cultures for S2a-cAMPr.

FIG. 19A-D shows photomicrographs of immunostaining of cellular organelles in SiRI-expressing neurons. Related to FIGS. 8 and 15. Representative confocal images of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing (FIG. 19A) S1-GCaMP6f (anti-AIF staining, n=5 neurons from 2 cultures; anti-EEA1 staining, n=5 neurons from 2 cultures; anti-Lamp1 staining, n=5 neurons from 2 cultures; anti-PDI staining, n=4 neurons from 2 cultures; anti-RCAS1 staining, n=4 neurons from 2 cultures), FIG. 19 (B) S2-cAMPr (anti-AIF staining, n=4 neurons from 1 culture; anti-EEA1 staining, n=6 neurons from 1 culture; anti-Lamp1 staining, n=2 neurons from 1 culture; anti-PDI staining, n=2 neurons from 1 culture; anti-RCAS1 staining, n=4 neurons from 1 culture), (FIG. 19C) S3-ExRaiAKAR (anti-AIF staining, n=6 neurons from 1 culture; anti-EEA1 staining, n=5 neurons from 1 culture; anti-Lamp1 staining, n=2 neurons from 1 culture; anti-PDI staining, n=5 neurons from 1 culture; anti-RCAS1 staining, n=5 neurons from 1 culture), or (FIG. 19D) S4-ExRaiCKAR (anti-AIF staining, n=4 neurons from 1 culture; anti-EEA1 staining, n=4 neurons from 1 culture; anti-Lamp1 staining, n=6 neurons from 1 culture; anti-PDI staining, n=4 neurons from 1 culture; anti-RCAS1 staining, n=5 neurons from 1 culture). Cells were immunostained against mitochondria (via anti-AIF), endosomes (via anti-EEA1), lysosomes (via anti-Lamp1), Golgi apparatus (via anti-PDI), or endoplasmic reticulum (ER; via anti-RCAS1). SiRI puncta in the GFP channel were colored cyan and immunostaining signals were colored magenta. Scale bar, 10 μm.

FIG. 20 shows photomicrographs of the expression of four different protein scaffolds that, upon self-assembly, can cluster cAMPr in live neurons. Related to FIG. 17. Representative images of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing four representative variants of protein scaffold-assembled cAMPr together with miRFP as a cell morphology marker (Table 1, motif sequences; Table 2, all tested constructs). For the variant shown in the last row, the expression was very weak and the brightness of cAMPr puncta (white arrows) was at a similar level to the autofluorescence from untransfected cells nearby. Scale bar, 20 μm.

FIG. 21A-H provides graphs showing results demonstrating degree of clustering of SiRI constructs at soma and neurite locations in cultured mouse hippocampal neurons after different of gene dosages. Related to FIGS. 8 and 15. (FIG. 21A-B) Degree of clustering of S1-GCaMP6f at soma (FIG. 21A) and neurite (about 50 μm away from the soma, throughout this figure) locations (FIG. 21B) (n=8, 10, 8, 10, and 5 neurons from 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1 culture for 100 ng, 250 ng, 500 ng, 750 ng, and 1000 ng, respectively). (FIG. 21C-D) Degree of clustering of S2-cAMPr at soma (FIG. 21C) and neurite locations (FIG. 21D) (n=5, 12, 11, 11, and 5 neurons from 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1 culture for 100 ng, 250 ng, 500 ng, 750 ng, and 1000 ng, respectively). (FIG. 21E-F) Degree of clustering of S3-ExRaiAKAR at soma (FIG. 21E) and neurite locations (FIG. 21F) (n=5, 5, 5, 5, and 5 neurons from 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1 culture for 100 ng, 250 ng, 500 ng, 750 ng, and 1000 ng, respectively). (FIG. 21G-H) Degree of clustering of S4-ExRaiCKAR at soma (FIG. 21G) and neurite locations (FIG. 21H) (n=11, 14, 6, 8, and 5 neurons from 2, 2, 1, 1, and 2 culture(s) for 100 ng, 250 ng, 500 ng, 750 ng, and 1000 ng, respectively). Degree of clustering (or ‘Dc’), the fluorescence intensity ratio between the puncta and non-puncta cytosol in SiRI-expressing cells; 100 ng, 250 ng, 500 ng, 750 ng, and 1000 ng, the mass of DNA of each SiRI construct used in calcium phosphate transfection per well in 24-well plates, with extra pUC19 dummy DNA added so that the total transfected DNA per well was 1500 ng; Dc was measured in live neurons 4 days after transfection on DIV 9; bar plots of medians with interquartile ranges are used throughout this figure, with individual values plotted as dots; n.s., not significant; Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test with ‘100 ng’ as control group throughout the figure; see Tables 28-29, 33-34, 44-45, and 63-64 for full statistics for FIG. 21.

FIG. 22A-B presents photomicrographs showing that puncta of S1-GCaMP6f and S2a-cAMPr are stationary during recording. Related to FIG. 17. FIG. 22A shows representative images of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing S1-GCaMP6f and miRFP before (t=0 sec) and after (t=80 sec) continuous recording for 80 seconds. Scale bar, 20 μm throughout this figure. FIG. 22B shows representative images of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing S2a-cAMPr and miRFP before (t=0 sec) and after (t=80 sec) continuous recording for 80 seconds.

FIG. 23A-E presents photomicrographs, and graphs reporting the results of spatially multiplexed imaging of multiple GFP-based sensors in single neurons. FIG. 23A shows representative images of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f and S2a-cAMPr, as well as the morphological marker miRFP (first three panels in the top row) and after fixation, immunostaining (with anti-Xpress to mark GCaMP6f and anti-HA to mark cAMPr), and DAPI staining to mark the cell nucleus (the remaining five panels). Yellow rectangles, boundaries of the regions to be shown in enlarged views in FIG. 23B. Scale bar, 20 μm. FIG. 23B shows enlarged views of the regions in the yellow rectangles of FIG. 23A. Orange squares indicate regions-of-interest (ROIs) containing puncta whose fluorescent signal time courses are plotted in FIG. 23C. Scale bar, 5 μm. FIG. 23C shows graphs of recorded fluorescent signals in the two ROIs marked in B during live cell imaging with 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=10 s. FIG. 23D shows a box plot of the number of soma-localized or neurite-localized S1-GCaMP6f or S2-cAMPr puncta per cell identified by immunostaining in neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, and miRFP (n=6 neurons from 6 cultures). FIG. 23E shows a box plot of the percentage of the soma-localized or neurite-localized sensor puncta that did not contain the other type of sensor, per cell, as identified by immunostaining in neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, and miRFP (n=6 neurons from 6 cultures).

FIG. 24A-E provides results relating to experiments demonstrating that S1-GCaMP6f and S2a-cAMPr formed functional and spatially separate clusters in HeLa cells. Related to FIG. 5 and FIG. 16. FIG. 24A provides a representative image of live HeLa cells expressing S1-GCaMP6f, as well as the morphological marker miRFP, and stained with NucBlue against the cell nucleus. Scale bars, 10 μm throughout this figure. FIG. 24B shows representative fluorescent signal recorded during live cell imaging from the HeLa cells in A under 10 mM CaCl₂stimulation at t=120 s. Throughout this figure: dF/F0, fluorescence change in the GFP channel. FIG. 24C provides a representative image of live HeLa cells expressing S2a-cAMPr, as well as the morphological marker miRFP, and stained with NucBlue against the cell nucleus. FIG. 24D illustrates representative fluorescent signal recorded during live cell imaging from the HeLa cells in C under 20 μM forskolin stimulation at t=120 s. FIG. 24E provides representative images of HeLa cells co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f and S2a-cAMPr. All images in FIG. 24E were taken after fixation, immunostaining against the Xpress epitope and HA epitope, and DAPI staining against the cell nucleus.

FIG. 25 presents graphs of simultaneous recording of Ca2⁺ and cAMP in neurons with two fluorescent sensors, S1-GCaMP6f and S2a-cAMPr, which have identical spectra. Fluorescent signals were recorded from the soma, proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma), and distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma) of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f and S2a-cAMPr with 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=10 s (n=6 neurons from 6 cultures). Each fluorescent signal was measured from a single punctum of S1-GCaMP6f or S2a-cAMPr.

FIG. 26A-J presents photomicrographs and graphs describing the results of spatially multiplexed imaging of three GFP-based sensors in single neurons. FIG. 26A shows a maximum intensity projection (MIP) image in the miRFP channel of a representative live cultured mouse hippocampal neuron co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and the cell morphological marker miRFP. Scale bar, 20 μm. FIG. 26B shows an MIP image in the GFP channel. Orange rectangles, boundaries of the regions to be shown in enlarged views in FIG. 26C-F. FIG. 26C, top left, shows the enlarged view of the soma region in FIG. 26B. FIG. 26C, top right, shows an MIP image of the same region after fixation and immunostaining against Xpress (magenta), HA (cyan), and V5 (yellow). Bottom, recorded fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), and PKA (yellow) activities in this region during live cell imaging under 5 μM forskolin stimulation. In each of FIG. 26D-F, the top left panels show an enlarged view of the corresponding neurite region in FIG. 26B, and the top right panels show an MW image of the same region after fixation and immunostaining against Xpress (magenta), HA (cyan), and V5 (yellow). Each bottom panel in FIG. 26D-F shows a graph of the corresponding recorded fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), and PKA (yellow) activities in this region during live cell imaging under 5 μM forskolin stimulation. FIG. 26G shows graphs of the averaged fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), and PKA (yellow) activities at soma (left) and neurite (right) under 5 μM forskolin stimulation (n=10 neurons from 6 cultures). Colored lines, mean; colored, shaded boundaries, standard error of mean. FIG. 26H shows three-dimensional graphs of the averaged phase portraits of Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA activities at soma (left) and neurite (right) during live cell imaging under 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=60 sec (n=10 neurons from 6 cultures). Colored centerline, mean color-coded by time; gray, shaded boundaries, standard error of mean; black dot, the time point when forskolin was added. FIG. 26I shows a bar plot of the number of soma-localized or neurite-localized puncta per cell for S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, and S3-ExRaiAKAR identified by immunostaining in neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP (n=5 neurons from 4 cultures). FIG. 26J shows a bar plot of the percentage of the soma-localized or neurite-localized puncta of S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, or S3-ExRaiAKAR that did not contain the other types of sensors, per cell, as identified by immunostaining in neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP (n=5 neurons from 4 cultures).

FIG. 27A-O provides graphs and traces from studies of waveform analysis of Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA responses at soma and neurite locations in cultured mouse hippocampal neurons under forskolin stimulation. Related to FIG. 13. (FIG. 27A) Neurite Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA activities from a representative neuron with a ‘transient calcium response’ at a neurite location (neurite locations were 20-60 μm away from soma) (left) and averaged across all neurons with ‘transient calcium responses’ (at neurite locations 20-60 μm away from soma) (right; n=7 neurons from 7 cultures; colored lines throughout this figure, mean; colored, shaded boundaries throughout this figure, standard error of mean). (FIG. 27B) Neurite Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA activities from a representative neuron with a ‘sustained calcium response’ at a neurite location (left) and averaged across neurons with ‘sustained calcium responses’ (right; n=16 neurons from 12 cultures). (FIG. 27C) Averaged neurite Ca²⁺ activity from neurons with ‘transient calcium responses’ at neurite locations (blue; n=7 neurons from 7 cultures) and from neurons with ‘sustained calcium responses’ at neurite locations (red; n=16 neurons from 12 cultures) under 50 μM forskolin stimulation for 3 minutes. Thin and light colored lines, neurite Ca²⁺ activities from individual neurons. Results from statistical tests for peak responses over indicated time windows (horizontal lines), and times to half rise (t_{1/2 rise}), are indicated. (FIG. 27D) Averaged neurite cAMP activity for the neurons of FIG. 27C. (FIG. 27E) Averaged neurite PKA activity for the neurons of FIG. 27C. Results from statistical tests for the rise slope, decay slope, and peak response were indicated on FIG. 27D and FIG. 27E by the arrow near the rise phase, the arrow near the decay phase, and the horizontal line near the peak response, respectively. Throughout this figure: n.s., not significant; *, P<0.05; **, P<0.01; ***, P<0.001; Wilcoxon rank sum tests; see Tables 49-51 for full statistics for FIG. 27. (FIG. 27F-O) Bar plots of the (FIG. 27F) Ca²⁺ peak response over the entire recording, (FIG. 27G) Ca²⁺ peak response during forskolin stimulation, (FIG. 27H) Ca²⁺ peak response after the end of forskolin stimulation, (FIG. 27I) time to half rise of Ca²⁺ response after the onset of forskolin stimulation, (FIG. 27J) cAMP peak response, (FIG. 27K) cAMP rise slope, (FIG. 27L) cAMP decay slope, (FIG. 27M) PKA peak response, and (FIG. 27N) PKA rise slope for neurons with ‘transient calcium responses’ and neurons with ‘sustained calcium responses’ at soma and neurite locations (20-60 μm away from soma) under 50 μM forskolin stimulation for 3 minutes. Bar plots of medians with interquartile ranges are used throughout this figure, with individual values plotted as dots. For ‘transient calcium responses’ type neurons, n=7 somata from 7 neurons from 6 cultures and n=7 neurites from 7 neurons from 7 cultures. For ‘sustained calcium responses’ type neurons, n=17 somata from 17 neurons from 12 cultures and n=16 neurites from 16 neurons from 12 cultures. (FIG. 27O) Violin plots of the punctum size of all puncta in the GFP channel in neurons with ‘transient calcium responses’ or neurons with ‘sustained calcium responses’ under 50 μM forskolin stimulation for 3 minutes (n=512 and 630 puncta in 5 and 5 neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP from 5 and 5 cultures for neurons with ‘transient calcium responses’ and neurons with ‘sustained calcium responses’, respectively). Red line, median; black line, interquartile ranges.

FIG. 28A-M presents a schematic, photomicrographs, and graphs of the results of spatially multiplexed imaging of four GFP-based sensors in single neurons. FIG. 28A shows a schematic diagram of the construct design of S4-ExRaiCKAR: I32-06B, self-assembling subunit B of I32-06 two-component icosahedron; OLLAS, E. coli OmpF linker and mouse langerin fusion sequence; I32-06A, self-assembling subunit A of I32-06 two-component icosahedron; AA, amino acid (Table 1, motif sequences; Table 2, all tested constructs). FIG. 28B shows a representative image of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiCKAR. FIG. 28C shows representative images of live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing S4-ExRaiCKAR and miRFP as a cell morphology marker. FIG. 28D shows graphs of representative fluorescent signals recorded from the soma, proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma throughout this figure), and distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma throughout this figure) of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiCKAR or S4-ExRaiCKAR under 100 ng/ml phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) stimulation at t=1 min. dF/F0, fluorescence change in GFP channel. Each fluorescent signal for S4-ExRaiAKAR was measured from a single punctum. FIG. 28E shows a bar plot of the peak fluorescence change in GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiCKAR or S4-ExRaiCKAR under 100 ng/ml PMA stimulation (n=10 somata, 20 proximal neurites, and 20 distal neurites from 10 neurons from 4 cultures for ExRaiCKAR; n=11 somata, 22 proximal neurites, and 22 distal neurites from 11 neurons from 4 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR). n.s., not significant; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test; Table 7, full statistics for FIG. 6. FIG. 28F shows a bar plot of the signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites (of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiCKAR or S4-ExRaiCKAR under 100 ng/ml PMA stimulation (n=10 somata, 20 proximal neurites, and 20 distal neurites from 10 neurons from 4 cultures for ExRaiCKAR; n=11 somata, 22 proximal neurites, and 22 distal neurites from 11 neurons from 4 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR). n.s., not significant; two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test; Table 7 for full statistics for FIG. 64. FIG. 28G shows a maximum intensity projection (MIP) image in the miRFP channel of a representative live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, S4-ExRaiCKAR, and the cell morphological marker miRFP. Scale bar, 20 μm. FIG. 28H shows an MIP image in the GFP channel of the same neuron shown in A. Orange rectangles, boundaries of the regions to be shown in enlarged views in FIG. 28C-D. In FIG. 28I, the top left panel shows an enlarged view of the soma region in FIG. 28H, and the top right panel, an MW image of the same region after fixation and two rounds of immunostaining against HA (cyan) and OLLAS (red) in the first round and Xpress (magenta) and V5 (yellow) in the second round. The bottom panel shows a graph of recorded fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), PKA (yellow), and PKC (red) activities in this region during live cell imaging under 5 μM forskolin and then 100 ng/ml PMA stimulations. In FIG. 28J, the top left panel shows an enlarged view of the neurite region in H, and the top right panel shows an MIP image of the same region after fixation and two rounds of immunostaining against HA (cyan) and OLLAS (red) in the first round and Xpress (magenta) and V5 (yellow) in the second round. The bottom panel shows a graph of recorded fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), PKA (yellow), and PKC (red) activities in this region during live cell imaging under 5 μM forskolin and then 100 ng/ml PMA stimulations. FIG. 28K shows graphs of the averaged fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (magenta), cAMP (cyan), PKA (yellow), and PKC (red) activities at soma (left) and neurite (right) under 5 μM forskolin and then 100 ng/ml PMA stimulations (n=4 neurons from 3 cultures). Colored lines, mean; colored, shaded boundaries, standard error of mean. FIG. 28L shows a bar plot of the number of soma-localized or neurite-localized puncta per cell for S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and S4-ExRaiCKAR identified by two rounds of immunostaining in neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, S4-ExRaiCKAR, and miRFP (n=5 neurons from 4 cultures). FIG. 28M shows a bar plot of the percentage of the soma-localized or neurite-localized puncta of S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, or S4-ExRaiCKAR that did not contain the other types of sensors, per cell, as identified by two rounds of immunostaining in neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, S4-ExRaiCKAR, and miRFP (n=5 neurons from 4 cultures).

FIG. 29A-B provides photomicrographic images and graphs of results of studies indicating that for some combinations of SiRI reporters of more than one color, reporter types can be inferred during live cell imaging, without requiring post-hoc immunostaining. Related to FIG. 16. (FIG. 29A) Maximum intensity projection (MIP) confocal images of a live cultured mouse hippocampal neuron co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f (a GFP based reporter), S3-ExRaiAKAR (a GFP based reporter), S3-RAB_EKARev (an RFP based reporter), and the cell morphological marker miRFP, as well as the recorded fluorescent signals of spontaneous Ca²⁺ (magenta), PKA (yellow), and ERK (green) activities at soma and at locations along neurites. Throughout this figure: in the composite images (those labeled ‘S3 colocalization’) from GFP and RFP channels, GFP and RFP channels were pseudo-colored in green and magenta, respectively, thus the puncta appearing in both channels would have white color in the composite images; puncta appearing in both GFP and RFP channels were identified as the puncta containing both S3-ExRaiAKAR (in the GFP channel) and S3-RAB_EKARev (in the RFP channel); puncta that appeared in the GFP channel only, were identified as puncta of S1-GCaMP6f. No punctum appeared in the RFP channel only. Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 29B) Maximum intensity projection (MW) confocal images of a live cultured mouse hippocampal glial cell co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, S3-RAB_EKARev, and the cell morphological marker miRFP, as well as recorded fluorescent signals of spontaneous Ca²⁺ (magenta), PKA (yellow), and ERK (green) activities. Scale bar, 20

FIG. 30A-G presents photomicrographs and graphs of the results of immunohistochemical characterization of cellular and synaptic state markers in mouse brains expressing SiRIs. Related to FIG. 14. (FIG. 30A) Representative confocal images of brain slices from 5-7 week old mice expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and mRuby3-6×FLAG in the right hemisphere following neonatal AAV injection. Neonatal (P0) Swiss Webster mice were injected with a mixture of three AAVs (pAAV-DJ-UBC-S1-GCaMP6f, pAAV-2/9-UBC-S3-ExRaiAKAR, and pAAV-2/9-hSyn-mRuby3-6×FLAG) in both the visual cortex and the hippocampus of the right hemisphere. When the mice reached the age of 5-7 weeks old, they were perfused with 4% PFA, sliced coronally at 100 μm in 1×PBS, and stained with antibodies against one of the cellular and synaptic markers below (see FIG. 30B-G) together with DAPI to label nuclei. Staining intensities of cellular and synaptic markers in the cortex (or CA1) were imaged volumetrically using a 40× objective on a spinning disk confocal microscope, with identical imaging conditions, measured in ImageJ as the averaged fluorescent intensities of the fluorescent secondary antibodies over imaged fields of view (185 μm×185 μm×50 μm for each fields of view), and compared between the injected hemisphere and the non-injected hemisphere. Scale bar, 1 mm. (FIG. 30B-G, top) Representative confocal images of cortex and CA1 in the injected hemisphere and non-injected hemisphere in the brain slices stained with antibodies against each of the cellular and synaptic markers indicated, and DAPI. Scale bars, 100 μm. (FIG. 30B-G, bottom) Bar plots of the staining intensities for each of the cellular and synaptic markers between the injected hemisphere and the non-injected hemisphere; for each marker, n=6 fields of view from 3 mice in the cortex (or in CA1) in the injected hemisphere (or non-injected hemisphere). Bar plots are medians with interquartile ranges, with individual values in arbitrary units (A.U.) plotted as circles and dots. (FIG. 30B) NeuN (neuronal nuclei marker). (FIG. 30C) Cleaved caspase-3 (apoptotic marker). (FIG. 30D) GFAP (astrocyte marker). (FIG. 30E) Iba1 (microglial marker). (FIG. 30F) Synaptophysin (a synaptic protein marker). (FIG. 30G) γH2AX (DNA damage marker). n.s., not significant; Wilcoxon rank sum test; see Tables 68-73 for full statistics for FIG. 30.

FIG. 31A-G presents photomicrographs and graphs of the results of waveform analysis of Ca²⁺ and PKA responses at sites on apical dendrites and basal dendrites of CA1 pyramidal neurons, under forskolin stimulation, in acute mouse brain slices. Related to FIG. 4. (FIG. 31A) Maximum intensity projection (MIP) confocal images of the CA1 pyramidal neuron shown in FIGS. 14B and 14C in acute mouse brain slices (insets labeled ‘Live’) and after fixation and immunostaining (images labeled ‘Fixed’). Scale bar, 20 μm. (FIG. 31B) Field excitatory postsynaptic potential (fEPSP) slopes (normalized to the baseline period before forskolin treatment) before, during, and after a 15-min-long 50 μM forskolin treatment starting at t=0 min (n=7 experiments on 7 slices from 5 mice co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and mRuby3-6×FLAG, although imaging of these reporters was not performed). Black dots, mean; error bars, standard error of mean. ***, P<0.001; Wilcoxon rank sum test for fEPSP slopes before and 45 minutes after the onset of forskolin treatment. (FIG. 31C) Ca²⁺ and PKA activities at locations on apical dendrites (30-100 μm away from soma) of CA1 pyramidal neurons from acute mouse brain slices averaged from neurons with delayed calcium responses (left; n=5 neurons from 5 slices from 3 mice), immediate calcium responses (middle; n=6 neurons from 2 slices from 2 mice), and spontaneous calcium responses (right; n=3 neurons from 2 slices from 2 mice), under 50 μM forskolin treatment for 15 minutes. Throughout this figure: colored lines, mean; colored, shaded boundaries, standard error of mean. (FIG. 31D) Ca²⁺ and PKA activities at locations on the basal dendrites (10-40 μm away from soma) of CA1 pyramidal neurons from acute mouse brain slices, averaged across neurons with delayed calcium responses (left; n=5 neurons from 5 slices from 3 mice), immediate calcium responses (middle; n=6 neurons from 2 slices from 2 mice), and spontaneous calcium responses (right; n=3 neurons from 2 slices from 2 mice), under 50 μM forskolin treatment for 15 minutes. Throughout this figure: colored lines, mean; colored, shaded boundaries, standard error of mean. (FIG. 31E) PKA activities at locations on the apical dendrites of CA1 pyramidal neurons from acute mouse brain slices, averaged across neurons with delayed calcium responses (blue; n=5 neurons from 5 slices from 3 mice), immediate calcium responses (red; n=6 neurons from 2 slices from 2 mice), and spontaneous calcium responses (green; n=3 neurons from 2 slices from 2 mice), under 50 μM forskolin treatment for 15 minutes. (FIG. 31F) PKA activities at locations along the basal dendrites of CA1 pyramidal neurons from acute mouse brain slices averaged across neurons with delayed calcium responses (blue; n=5 neurons from 5 slices from 3 mice), immediate calcium responses (red; n=6 neurons from 2 slices from 2 mice), and spontaneous calcium responses (green; n=3 neurons from 2 slices from 2 mice), under 50 μM forskolin treatment for 15 minutes. For FIG. 31E and FIG. 31F, n.s., not significant; Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for rise slopes (arrow near the rise phase), peak responses (horizontal line near the peak response), and durations of PKA activation (arrow on the right hand side of the panel), followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test. See Tables 76-78 for full statistics for FIG. 31. (FIG. 31G) Bar plot of Pearson correlation coefficients of the Ca²⁺ or PKA responses recorded from soma-, apical dendrite-, and basal dendrite-localized puncta within single CA1 pyramidal neurons (n=13 neurons from 6 slices from 3 mice). Bar plots of medians with interquartile ranges are used, with individual values plotted as dots.

FIG. 32A-G presents photomicrographs and graphs of the results of spatially multiplexed imaging of Ca²⁺ and PKA activities via two GFP-based sensors during long-term potentiation. FIG. 32A shows representative maximum intensity projection (MW) images of the hippocampus in sagittal brain slices from mice co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and the cell morphological marker mRuby3 by hippocampus targeted in utero electroporation. FIG. 32B shows representative MIP images of the CA1 pyramidal neurons in mice co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f (green), S3-ExRaiAKAR (green), and the cell morphological marker mRuby3 (magenta), before and after immunostaining against Xpress (cyan) and V5 (yellow). FIG. 32C shows a bar plot of the percentage of the soma-localized, apical neurite-localized, or basal neurite-localized puncta of S1-GCaMP6f or S3-ExRaiAKAR that did not contain the other type of sensor, per cell, as identified by immunostaining in brain slices from mice co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and mRuby3 (n=5 CA1 pyramidal neurons from 4 slices from 3 mice). FIG. 32D shows a graph of representative field excitatory postsynaptic potentials (fEPSPs) recorded at the stratum radiatum of CA1 when electrically stimulated at the Schaffer collateral in sagittal brain slices from mice co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and mRuby3. Gray trace, fEPSP before forskolin treatment; black trace, fEPSP 15 min after a 15-min-long 50 μM forskolin treatment. FIG. 32E shows a graph of the average fEPSP slope (normalized to the baseline period before forskolin treatment) before, during, and after a 15-min-long 50 μM forskolin treatment starting at t=0 min (n=7 experiments on 7 slices from 5 mice co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and mRuby3). Black dots, mean; error bars, standard error of mean. FIG. 32F shows representative fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (cyan) and PKA (yellow) activities at soma (middle), basal neurite (left), and apical neurite (right) of CA1 pyramidal neurons before, during, and after a 15-min-long 50 μM forskolin treatment. FIG. 32G shows graphs of the averaged fluorescent signals of Ca²⁺ (cyan) and PKA (yellow) activities at soma (middle), basal neurite (left), and apical neurite (right) of CA1 pyramidal neurons before, during, and after a 15-min-long 50 μM forskolin treatment (n=11 neurons from 6 slices from 3 mice). Colored lines, mean; colored, shaded boundaries, standard error of mean.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The invention in some aspects relates to novel methods of imaging that permit imaging of the physiology and activity within single cells with subcellular, nanoscale precision. The methods, in some aspects include clustering and stochastically distributing two or more compositions comprising one or more independently selected reporter protein elements inside a cell to be imaged. In certain embodiments, the composition is an RNA-protein-based clustering composition and in some embodiments, the composition is a protein self-assembly clustering composition. Certain embodiments of the invention may include one or more of each of an RNA-protein-based clustering composition and a protein self-assembly clustering composition.

Embodiments of methods and compositions of the invention can be used to prepare and use cluster sensors in signaling reporter islands (SiRIs). As used herein the term “SiRIs” means the engineered RNA and protein scaffolds that comprise clusters of sensors. The term “sensor” as used herein is a composition or molecule capable of producing a signal in response to a condition. Non-limiting examples of sensors are reporter protein elements such as those described elsewhere herein. Embodiments of SiRIs of the invention can be delivered into a cell and one or more of a condition, activity, change, in a physiological characteristic of the cell can be determined and assessed based on the signal produced by one or more sensors in the SiRIs. A general schematic of an embodiment of the invention is shown in FIG. 1A.

Different strategies can be used to prepare SiRIs of the invention. For example, one strategy includes scaffolding of different sensors onto distinct RNA strands (FIG. 1B) and another strategy includes clustering of different sensors mediated by distinct self-assembling proteins (FIG. 1C). Another strategy used in certain embodiments of the invention includes the linking of multiple self-assembling peptides (FIG. 1D). These linked fusion proteins form what are referred to herein as “puncta” or “clusters” in cells. In some embodiments of the invention, methods of the invention are used to prepare SiRIs in a single cell and the SiRIs in a single cell may be prepared using one or both of (i) scaffolding of different sensors onto distinct RNA strands and (ii) clustering of different sensors mediated by distinct self-assembling proteins. As a non-limiting example, compounds and methods of the invention are used to for clustering both fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) sensors that are difficult to use in a spectrally multiplexed fashion because of the broad spectral range associated with each sensor, as well as non-FRET based reporters that contain a single fluorophore.

It has now been identified that it is possible to monitor different signals, non-limiting examples of which are Ca2⁺ and cAMP signals, from spectrally overlapping or even spectrally identical fluorophores, in single cells and in single neurons in culture. The ability to use simultaneous measurement of these signals in individual cells has revealed very complex relationships between these signals, including variations in the timing, amplitude, and shape of the signals in relation to each other. These results demonstrate the value and importance of performing multiple measurements at the same time in individual cells, because prior methods that included measuring the signals in separate cells and then averaging the data across populations before comparing them to each other resulted in loss of these relationships. The ability to simultaneously detect and assess signals from two or more spectrally overlapping or even spectrally identical fluorophores in single cells, which supports the broad utility of compositions and methods of the invention in numerous scientific areas.

Unlike prior imaging methods, some of which permitted imaging of clusters of reporter polypeptides, which were capable of detecting and comparing simultaneous physiological processes only in different cells, methods and compositions of the invention described herein can be used to image clusters of different compositions in a single cell and thus can be used to acquire information about multiple simultaneous physiological processes occurring within a single cell. Non-limiting examples of physiological processes that can be assessed using embodiments of compositions and methods of the invention are one or more of: pH of the cell, voltage in the cell, and the presence of one or more of: calcium, magnesium, chloride, and potassium in the cell.

Compositions and methods of the invention can be used to localize, via engineered RNA and protein scaffolds that are bioorthogonal to mammalian cells, spectrally similar or even spectrally identical fluorescent reporters of different biological signals at different points in space, which are referred to herein as signaling reporter islands (SiRIs). Non-limiting examples of the use of compositions and methods of the invention include live imaging of the cell comprising SiRIs, post hoc reconstruction of sensor identity in fixed cells comprising SiRIs via epitope immunostaining, and RNA FISH, or other highly multiplexed fixed cell imaging methods. Using compositions and methods of the invention it is possible to record multiple fluorescent signals at different points in space within a cell, with minimal crosstalk, in a fashion where the identity of the signal can be clearly defined. In short, SiRIs allow the high multiplexing capacity of fixed cell imaging to be translated to help the live cell imaging case, using the spatial dimension as an asset.

SiRIs of the invention have been found to be stationary over timescales appropriate for live cell imaging. Methods of using two or more different scaffolds of the invention with different kinds of spacing can permit a balance between the number of signals that can be simultaneously observed, and the spatial sampling that is permitted. As set forth elsewhere herein, multiple different candidate scaffolds have been prepare and used, each showing clustering. Sequences included in embodiments of modular SiRIs of the invention are shown in Table 1. Table 2 provides details of components included in RNA-based and protein-based scaffolds that have been prepared. Sequences of SiRI components listed in Table 2 are available in Table 1 and also from Addgene (Watertown, Mass.; addgene.org); GenBank (NCBI, Bethesda, Md.; ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank); and FPbase (Lambert, T J (2019) Nature Methods. 16, 277-278; fpbase.org). In Tables 1 and 2 UBC is UBC promoter “human ubiquitin C promoter”; CAG is CAG promoter “CMV early enhancer/chicken β actin promoter”; PBS is “PP7 binding sequence”, and PBS1 and PBS2 are functionally identical; MBS is “MS2 binding sequence”; KGC is “golgi export trafficking signal KGC”; SYN is “human synapsin I promoter”; and WPRE is “WHP Posttranscriptional Response Element”.

TABLE 1

Sequences and information relating to amino acid and nucleic acid sequences used in

certain embodiments of the invention.

SEQ ID

Amino acid sequence (or nucleic
Reference or

NO
Motif name
acid sequence if specified)
description

1
Tandem
MASNFTQFVLVDNGGTGDVTVAPSNFA
(Wu Chao and

dimer MS2
NGIAEWISSNSRSQAYKVTCSVRQSSAQ
Singer, 2012)

coat protein
NRKYTIKVEVPKGAWRSYLNMELTIPIFA

(tdMCP)
TNSDCELIVKAMQGLLKDGNPIPSAIAAN

SGIYAMASNFTQFVLVDNGGTGDVTVAP

SNFANGIAEWISSNSRSQAYKVTCSVRQS

SAQNRKYTIKVEVPKGAWRSYLNMELTI

PIFATNSDCELIVKAMQGLLKDGNPIPSAI

AANSG

2
Tandem
LASKTIVLSVGEATRTLTEIQSTADRQIFE
(Wu Chao and

dimer PP7
EKVGPLVGRLRLTASLRQNGAKTAYRV
Singer, 2012)

coat protein
NLKLDQADVVDSGLPKVRYTQVWSHDV

(tdPCP)
TIVANSTEASRKSLYDLTKSLVATSQVED

LVVNLVPLGRADPLASKTIVLSVGEATRT

LTEIQSTADRQIFEEKVGPLVGRLRLTAS

LRQNGAKTAYRVNLKLDQADVVDSGLP

KVRYTQVWSHDVTIVANSTEASRKSLYD

LTKSLVATSQVEDLVVNLVPLGR

3
MS2 binding
(nucleic acid sequence)
(Wu, Chao and

site
acatgaggatcacccatgt
Singer, 2012)

(MBS)

4
PP7 binding
(nucleic acid sequence)
(Wu, Chao and

site version
ggagcagacgatatggcgtcgctcc
Singer, 2012)

1

(PBS 1)

5
PP7 binding
(nucleic acid sequence)
(Wu, Chao and

site version
ccagcagagcatatgggctcgctgg
Singer, 2012)

2

(PBS 2)

6
LambdaN22
MDAQTRRRERRAEKQAQWKAAN
(Franklin, 1985;

protein

Martin et al.,

(LNP)

2013)

7
LambdaN22
(nucleic acid sequence)
(Martin et al.,

binding site
gggccctgaagaagggccc
2013)

(BoxB)

8
Actb UTR
(nucleic acid sequence)
3′ UTR of

gcggactgttactgagctgcgttttacaccctttctttgacaaaac
mouse β actin

ctaacttgcgcagaaaaaaaaaaaataagagacaacattggcat
mRNA

ggctttgtttttttaaattttttttaaagttttttttttttttttttttttttttttta
(nucleotide 1-441)

agtttttttgttttgttttggcgcttttgactcaggatttaaaaactgg
(Wu et al., 2016)

aacggtgaaggcgacagcagttggttggagcaaacatccccc

aaagttctacaaatgtggctgaggactttgtacattgttttgtttttttt

tttttttggttttgtattttttaatagtcattccaagtatccatgaaata

agtggttacaggaagtccctcaccctcccaaaagccaccccca

ctcctaagaggaggatggtcgcgtccatgccctgagtccaccc

cggggaaggtgaca

9
I3-01
MKMEELFKKHKIVAVLRANSVEEAKKK
(Hsia et al.,

ALAVFLGGVHLIEITFTVPDADTVIKELSF
2016)

LKEMGAIIGAGTVTSVEQCRKAVESGAE

FIVSPHLDEEISQFCKEKGVFYMPGVMTP

TELVKAMKLGHTILKLFPGEVVGPQFVK

AMKGPFPNVKFVPTGGVNLDNVCEWFK

AGVLAVGVGSALVKGTPVEVAEKAKAF

VEKIRGCTE

10
O3-33
MSQAIGILELTSIAAGMELGDAMLKSAN
(King et al.,

VDLLVSKTISPGKFLLMLGGDIGAIQQAI
2012)

ETGTSQAGELLVDSLVLANIHPSVLPAIS

GLNSVDKRQAVGIVETWSVAACISAADR

AVKGSNVTLVRVHMAFGIGGKCYMVVA

GDVSDVALAVTVASSSAGAYGLLVYAS

LIPRPHEAMWRQMVEGLE

11
HexCoil-Ala
AEAESALEYAQQALEKAQLALQAARQA
(Grigoryan et al.,

LKA
2011)

12
5H2L_2
TQEDLLKKIMKLLKKQIKLLKKQIKMLK
(Huang et al.,

RLEKQ
2014)

13
Linker12
GGSGGTGGSGGT
Flexible linker

14
Linker24
GGSGGTGGSGGTGGSGGTGGSGGT
Flexible linker

15
Linker27
GGSGGSGGTGGSGGSGGTGGSGGSGGT
Flexible linker

16
Linker29
GGSGGSGGTGGSGGSGGTGGSGGSGGT
Flexible linker

GG

17
Linker48
GGSGGTGGSGGTGGSGGTGGSGGTGGS
Flexible linker

GGTGGSGGTGGSGGTGGSGGT

18
Linker50
GGSGGTGGSGGTGGSGGTGGSGGTGGS
Flexible linker

GGTGGSGGTGGSGGTGGSGGTGG

19
T3-10
MTEKEKMLAEKWYDANFDQTLINERLR
(King et al.,

AKVICFALNHTNPVATMMRKVLIDALFQ
2012)

TTTDNVSISIPFDTDYGWNVKLGKNVYV

NTNCYFMDGGQITIGDNVFIGPNCGFYT

ATHPLNFHHRNEGFEKAGPIHIGSNTWFG

GHVAVLPGVTIGEGSVIGAGSVVTKDIPP

HSLAVGNPCKVVRKIDNDLPSETLNDETI

K

20
3VDX
MPFITVGQENSTSIDLYYEDHGTGVPVVL
(Lai, Cascio and

IHGFPLSGHSWERQSAALLDAGYRVITY
Yeates, 2012;

DRRGFGQSSQPTTGYDYDTFAADLNTVL
Lai et al., 2016)

ETLDLQDAVLVGFSMGTGEVARYVSSY

GTARIAAVAFLASLEPFLLKTDDNPDGA

APQEFFDGIVAAVKADRYAFYTGFFNDF

YNLDENLGTRISEEAVRNSWNTAASGGF

FAAAAAPTTWYTDFRADIPRIDVPALILH

GTGDRTLPIENTARVFHKALPSAEYVEVE

GAPHGLLWTHAEEVNTALLAFLAKALE

AQKQKLLTEVETYVLSIIPSGPLKAEIAQR

LEDVFAGKNTDLEVLMEWLKTRPILSPL

TKGILGFVFTLTVPSERGLQRRRFVQNAL

NGNGDPNNMDKAVKLYRKLKREITFHG

AKEISLSYSAGALASCMGLIYNRMGAVT

TEVAFGLVCATCEQIADSQHRSHRQLE

21
5L6HC3_1
SEELRAVADLQRLNIELARKLLEAVARL
(Boyken et al.,

QELNIDLVRKTSELTDEKTIREEIRKVKEE
2016)

SKRIVEEAEEEIRRAKEESRYIADESRGS

22
2L8HC4_15
GSRVYESEKLAREADKLAQKSEDMARE
(Boyken et al.,

ADKQARRAEERPDREEIARLAAIIARMV
2016)

ALNSRIAMLMARMIMLNSQES

23
ATC-HL3
MQWQTKLPLIAILRGITPDEALAHVGAVI
(Lai et al., 2014)

DAGFDAVEIPLNSPQWEQSIPAIVDAYGD

KALIGAGTVLKPEQVDALARMGCQLIVT

PNIHSEVIRRAVGYGMTVCPGCATATEA

FTALEAGAQALKIFPSSAFGPQYIKALKA

VLPSDIAVFAVGGVTPENLAQWIDAGCA

GAGLGSDLYRAGQSVERTAQQAAAFVK

AYREAQKQKEQRQDQKSAYALGASLGR

YMENSLKEQEKLGIKLDKDQLIAGVQDA

FADKSKLSDQEIEQTLQAFEARVKSSAQ

AKLE

24
T32-28
MGEVPIGDPKELNGMEIAAVYLQPIEME
(King et al.,

PRGIDLAASLADIHLEADIHALKNNPNGF
2014)

PEGFWMPYLTIAYALANADTGAIKTGTL

MPMVADDGPHYGANIAMEKDKKGGFG

VGTYALTFLISNPEKQGFGRHVDEETGV

GKWFEPFVVTYFFKYTGTPKGGGSGGGS

MSQAIGILELTSIAKGMELGDAMLKSAN

VDLLVSKTISPGKFLLMLGGDIGAIQQAI

ETGTSQAGEMLVDSLVLANIHPSVLPAIS

GLNSVDKRQAVGIVETWSVAACISAADL

AVKGSNVTLVRVHMAFGIGGKCYMVVA

GDVLDVAAAVATASLAAGAKGLLVYAS

IIPRPHEAMWRQMVEG

25
I32-06A
GMTDYIRDGSAIKALSFAIILAEADLRHIP
(Bale et al.,

QDLQRLAVRVIHA
2016)

CGMVDVANDLAFSEGAGKAGRNALLAG

APILCDARMVAEGITRSRLPADNRVIYTL

SDPSVPELAKKIGNTRSAAALDLWLPHIE

GSIVAIGNAPTALFRLFELLDAGAPKPALI

IGMPVGFVGAAESKDELAANSRGVPYVI

VRGRRGGSAMTAAAVNALASERE

26
I32-06B
MITVFGLKSKLAPRREKLAEVIYSSLHLG
(Bale et al.,

LDIPKGKHAIRFLCLEKEDFYYPFDRSDD
2016)

YTVIEINLMAGRSEETKMLLIFLLFIALER

KLGIRAHDVEITIKEQPAHCWGFRGRTG

DSARDLDYDIYV

27
I52-03A
MGHTKGPTPQQHDGSALRIGIVHARWN
(Bale et al.,

KTIIMPLLIGTIAKLLECGVKASNIVVQSV
2016)

PGSWELPIAVQRLYSASQLQTPSSGPSLS

AGDLLGSSTTDLTALPTTTASSTGPFDALI

AIGVLIKGETMHFEYIADSVSHGLMRVQ

LDTGVPVIFGVLTVLTDDQAKARAGVIE

GSHNHGEDWGLAAVEMGVRRRDWAAG

KTE

28
I52-03B
MYEVDHADVYDLFYLGRGKDYAAEAS
(Bale et al.,

DIADLVRSRTPEASSLLDVACGTGTHLEH
2016)

FTKEFGDTAGLELSEDMLTHARKRLPDA

TLHQGDMRDFQLGRKFSAVVSMFSSVG

YLKTVAELGAAVASFAEHLEPGGVVVV

EPWWFPETFADGWVSADVVRRDGRTVA

RVSHSVREGNATRMEVHFTVADPGKGV

RHFSDVHLITLFHQREYEAAFMAAGLRV

EYLEGGPSGRGLFVGVPALE

29
I53-34A
GMEGMDPLAVLAESRLLPLLTVRGGEDL
(Bale et al.,

AGLATVLELMGVGALEITLRTEKGLEAL
2016)

KALRKSGLLLGAGTVRSPKEAEAALEAG

AAFLVSPGLLEEVAALAQARGVPYLPGV

LTPTEVERALALGLSALKFFPAEPFQGVR

VLRAYAEVFPEVRFLPTGGIKEEHLPHYA

ALPNLLAVGGSWLLQGDLAAVMKKVK

AAKALLSPQAPG

30
I53-34B
MTKKVGIVDTTFARVDMAEAAIRTLKAL
(Bale et al.,

SPNIKIIRKTVPGIKDLPVACKKLLEEEGC
2016)

DIVMALGMPGKAEKDKVCAHEASLGLM

LAQLMTNKHIIEVFVHEDEAKDDDELDIL

ALVRAIEHAANVYYLLFKPEYLTRMAGK

GLRQGREDAGPARE

31
5L8HC4_6
GSKDTEDSRKIWEDIRRLLEEARKNSEEI
(Boyken et al.,

WKEITKNPDTSEIARLLSEQLLEIAEMLV
2016)

RIAELLSRQTEQR

32
1D7A
GARVAIVMGSLSDWATMQFAALIFLILN
Engineered from

VPHHVEVVSAHRTPDKLFSFAESAEENG
a bacterial

YQVIIAGAGGAAHLPGMIAAKTLVPVLG
protein; (Garcia-

VPVQSAALSGVDSLYSIVQMPRGIPVGTL
Seisdedos et al.,

AIGKAGAANAALLAAQILATHDKELHQR
2017)

LNDWRKAQTDEVLENPLPRG

33
1FRW
MNLMTTITGVVLAGGKARRMGGVDKG
Engineered from

LLELNGKPLWQHVADALMTQLSHVVVN
a bacterial

ANRHQEIYQASGLKVIEDSLADYPGPLA
protein; (Garcia-

GMLSVMQQEAGEWFLFCPCDTPYIPPDL
Seisdedos et al.,

AARLNHQRKDAPVVWVHDGERDHPTIA
2017)

LVNRAIEPLLLEYLQAGERRVMVFMRLA

GGHAVLFSLHLLAFVNVNTPEELARWQE

KR

34
1L6W
MELYLDTSDVVAVKALSiRIFPLAGVTTN
Engineered from

PSIIAAGKKPLDVVLPQLHEAMGGQGRL
a bacterial

FAQVMATTAEGMVNDALKLRSIIADIVV
protein; (Garcia-

KVPVTAEGLAAIYMLYAYGIPTLGTAVY
Seisdedos et al.,

GAAQGLLSALAGAEYVAPYVNRIDAQG
2017)

GSGIQTVTDLHQLLKMHAPQAKVLAASF

KTPRQALDCLLAGCESITLPLDVAQQMIS

YPAVDAAVAKFEQDWQGAFGRTSI

35
1YAC
MTKPYVRLDKNDAAVLLVDHQAGLLSL
Engineered from

VRDIEPDKFKNNVLALGDLAKYFNLPTIL
a bacterial

TTSAETGPNGPLVPELKAQFPDAPYIARP
protein; (Garcia-

GNINAWYNEYFVYAVYATGKKQLIIAGV
Seisdedos et al.,

VTEVCVAFPALSAIEEGFDVFVVTDASGT
2017)

FNEITRHSAWDRMSQAGAQLMTWFGVA

CELHRDWRNDIAGLATLFSNHIPDYRNL

MTSYDTLTKQK

36
2IV1
MIQSQINRNIRLDLADAILLSKAYYYLSF
Engineered from

AEIADGTGLAEAFVTAALLGQQALPADA
a bacterial

ARLVGAKLDLDEDSILLLQMIPLRGCIDD
protein; (Garcia-

RIPTDPTMYQFYEMLQVYGTTLKALVHE
Seisdedos et al.,

KFGDGIISAINFKLDVKKVADPEGGERAV
2017)

ITLDGKYLPTKPF

37
1M3U
MKPTTISLLQKYKQEKKRFATITAYDYSF
Engineered from

AKLFADEGLNVMLVGDSLGMTVQGHDS
a bacterial

TLPVTVADIAYHTAAVRRGAPNCLLLAD
protein; (Garcia-

LPFMAYATPEQAFENAATVMRAGANMV
Seisdedos et al.,

KIEGGEWLVETVQMLTERAVPVCGHLG
2017)

LTPQSVNIFGGYKVQGRGLLAGLQLLSD

ALALEAAGAQLLVLECVPVELAKRITEA

LAIPVIGIGAGNVTDGQILVMHDAFGITG

GHIPKFAKNFLAETGDIRAAVRQYMAEV

ESGVYPGEEHSFH

38
2CG4
MENYLIDNLDRGILEALMGNARTAYAEL
Engineered from

AKQFGVSPETIHVRVEKMKQAGIITGARI
a bacterial

DVSPKQLGYDVGCFIGIILKSAKDYPSAL
protein; (Garcia-

IDALQHVLINYIQTIYEIQSTETLIVLQNPI
Seisdedos et al.,

MRTIKP
2017)

39
2AN9
MAQGTLYIVSAPSGAGKSSLIQALLKTQP
Engineered from

LYDTQVSVSHTTRQPRPGEVHGEHYFFV
a bacterial

NHYYFYYMISRDAFLEHAEVFGNYYGTS
protein; (Garcia-

REAIEQVLATGVDVFLDIDWQGAQQIRQ
Seisedos et al.,

KMPHARSIFILPPSKIELDRRLRGRGQDSE
2017)

EVIAKRMAQAVAEMSHYAEYDYLIVND

DFDTALTDLKTIIRAERLRMSRQKQRHD

ALISKLLAD

40
2AN9-
MAQGTLYIVSAPSGAGKSSLIQALLKTQP
Mutated in this

mutant1
LYDTQVSVAHTTRQPRPGEVHGEHYFFV
study from

NHYYFYYMISRDAFLEHAEVFGNYYGTS
2AN9 above to

REAIEQVLATGVDVFLDIDWQGAQQIRQ
deactivate the

KMPHARSIFILPPSKIELDRRLRGRGQDSE
enzymatic site in

EVIAKRMAQAVAEMSHYAEYDYLIVND
2AN9.

DFDTALTDLKTIIRAERLRMSRQKQRHD

ALISKLLAD

41
2AN9-
MAQGTLYIVSAPSGAGKGSLIQALLKTQ
Mutated in this

mutant2
PLYDTQVSVAHTTRQPGPGEVHGEHYFF
study from

VNHYYFYYMISRDAFLEHAEVFGNYYG
2AN9 above to

TSREAIEQVLATGVDVFLDIDWQGAQQI
deactivate the

RQKMPHARSIFILPPSKIELDRRLRGRGQ
enzymatic site in

DSEEVIAKRMAQAVAEMSHYAEYDYLI
2AN9.

VNDDFDTALTDLKTIIRAERLRMSRQKQ

RHDALISKLLAD

42
p3Z_11
MEEVVLITVPSESVARIIAKALVASRLAA
(Gonen et al.,

Design
CVNIVPGLTSIYRWQGSVVEDQELLLLV
2015)

KTTTHAFPKLKHTVKIIHPYTVPEIVALPI

AEGNREYLDWLRENTGLEHEIHEIHE

43
EE
LEIEAAFLEQENTALETEVAELEQEVQRL
(Moll et al.,

ENIVSQYETRYGPL
2001)

44
RR
LEIRAAFLRRRNTALRTRVAELRQRVQR
(Moll et al.,

LRNIVSQYETRYGPL
2001)

45
E5
EVSALEKEVSALEKEVSALEKEVSALEK
(Tripet et al.,

EVSALEK
1996)

46
K5
CGGKVSALKEKVSALKEKVSALKEKVS
(Tripet et al.,

ALKEKVSALKE
1996)

47
LZA
AQLEKELQALEKKLAQLEWENQALEKE
(Shekhawat et

LAQ
al., 2009)

48
LZB
AQLKKKLQANKKELAQLKWKLQALKK
(Shekhawat et

KLAQ
al., 2009)

49
ACID-p1
AQLEKELQALEKENAQLEWELQALEKEL
(Oakley and

AQ
Kim, 1998)

50
BASE-p1
AQLKKKLQALKKKNAQLKWKLQALKK
(Oakley and

KLAQ
Kim, 1998)

51
DoNAp1
EIKALEQEIAALKQKIAWLKQ
(Boyle et al.,

2012)

52
DoNAp2
KIKALKQEIAALKQEIAYLEQ
(Boyle et al.,

2012)

53
P3
SPEDEIQQLEEEIAQLEQKNAALKEKNQA
(Gradigar et al.,

LKYG
2013)

54
P4
SPEDKIAQLKQKIQALKQENQQLEEENA
(Gradigar et al.,

ALEYG
2013)

55
APH
MKQLEKELKQLEKELQAIEKQLAQLQW
(Negron and

KAQARKKKLAQLKKKLQA
Keating, 2014)

56
BCR
DIEQELERAKASIRRLEQEVNQERSRMA
(Gradigar et al.,

YLQTLLAK
2013)

57
GCNsh
QLEDKVEELLSKNYHLENEVARLKKLVG
(Gradigar et al.,

2013)

58
CC_Di
GEIAALKQEIAALKKENAALKWEIAALK
(Fletcher et al.,

QGYY
2012)

59
CC_Tri
GEIAAIKQEIAAIKKEIAAIKWEIAAIKQG
(Fletcher et al.,

YG
2012)

60
CC-Hept
GEIAQALKEIAKALKEIAWALKEIAQALK
(Thomson et al.,

G
2014)

61
CC-Hex2
GEIAKSLKEIAKSLKEIAWSLKEIAKSLKG
(Thomson et al.,

2014)

62
CC-Pent
GKIEQILQKIEKILQKIEWILQKIEQILQG
(Thomson et al.,

2014)

63
CC-Tet
GELAAIKQELAAIKKELAAIKWELAAIKQ
(Zaccai et al.,

GAG
2011)

64
HOTag6
TLREIEELLRKIIEDSVRSVAELEDIEKWL
(Zhang et al.,

KKI
2018)

Linker2
GS
Flexible linker

Linker2G
GG
Flexible linker

Linker3
GSG
Flexible linker

65
Linker4
GSGS
Flexible linker

66
Linker6
GGSGGT
Flexible linker

67
Linker
GGGSGGGS
Flexible linker

(GGGS)x2

68
Linker
GGGSGGGSGGGSGGGS
Flexible linker

(GGGS)x4

69
Linker6AP
APAPAP
Rigid linker

70
Linker5EA
EAAAK
Rigid linker

71
Linker
EAAKEAAK
Rigid linker

(EAAK)x2

72
NLS
PKKKRKV
Nuclear

localization

sequence (NLS)

from SV40 large

T-antigen

73
CAAX
GAGAKEKMSKDGKKKKKKSKTKCVIM
CAAX plasma

membrane

targeting motif

from ras proteins

(Hancock et al.,

1991)

74
Xpress
DLYDDDDK
Synthetic peptide

Xpress epitope

75
HA
YPYDVPDYA
Influenza

hemagglutin-in

epitope (Wilson

et al., 1984)

76
V5
GKPIPNPLLGLDST
Simian virus 5-

derived epitope

(Southern et al.,

1991)

77
OLLAS
SGFANELGPRLMGK

78
VSVg
YTDIEMNRLGK

79
E_epitope
GAPVPYPDPLEPR

80
FLAG
DYKDDDDK
Synthetic peptide

FLAG epitope

(Hopp et al.,

1988)

81
mRuby3-
MDYKDDDDKGDYKDDDDKGDYKDDD
(Viswanathan et

6xFLAG
DKGGGGGVSKGEELIKENMRMKVVME
al., 2015)

GSVNGHQFKCTGEGEGRPYEGVQTMRIK

VIEGGPLPFAFDILATSFMYGSRTFIKYPA

DIPDFFKQSFPEGFTWERVTRYEDGGVV

TVTQDTSLEDGELVYNVKVRGVNFPSNG

PVMQKKTKGWEPNTEMMYPADGGLRG

YTDIALKVDGGGHLHCNFVTTYRSKKTV

GNIKMPGVHAVDHRLERIEESDNETYVV

QREVAVAKYSNLGGGMDELYKGGGGG

DYKDDDDKGDYKDDDDKGDYKDDDDK

TABLE 2

Component details and results for constructs prepared and screened in HeLa

cells and/or neurons - see Table 1 for sequences of certain components.

Construct (non-coding regions are

underlined; non-coding

regions other than promoters,

beta actin UTR, and MS2/PP7

binding sites are omitted; ‘+’

Degree of clustering (D_C)

denotes co-expression; ‘-’s in the

under optical microscope

motif names are changed to ‘_’
Expressed and not causing cell
in the tested cell type(s)?

since we use ‘-’ to separate parts
death in the tested cell
(D_C= 1 means no resolvable
Fluorescent reporter is functional

of constructs.)
type(s)?
puncta.)
in the tested cell type(s)?

UBC-NLS-HA-tdMCP-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 10-50 in
Yes, in HeLa

Linker12-Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
HeLa cells; D_C= 1 in
cells and

(also known as MP-GCaMP6f) +
neurons.
neurons.
neurons.

CAG-miRFP-ActbUTR-

48xMBS

(also known as MR-SF)

UBC-NLS-V5-tdPCP-Linker24-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 20-50 in
Yes, in HeLa

ICUE3
cells and
HeLa cells; D_C= 1 in
cells and

(also known as PP-ICUE3) +
neurons.
neurons.
neurons.

CAG-miRFP-ActbUTR-

72xPBS

(also known as PR-SF)

UBC-NLS-HA-tdPCP-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 20-50 in
Yes, in HeLa

Linker12- GCaMP6f +
cells and
HeLa cells; D_C~ 1.2 in
cells and

CAG-miRFP-ActbUTR-
neurons.
the soma
neurons.

72xPBS

of neurons; D_C= 1 in

(also known as PR-SF)

the neurites

of neurons.

UBC-NLS-HA-tdMCP-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~3 in
No fluorescent

Linker12- mRuby2

the soma of neurons;
reporter in this

(also known as MP-mRuby2) +

D_C~5 in
construct.

CAG-miRFP-ActbUTR-

the neurites of

48xMBS

neurons.

(also known as MR-SF)

UBC-NLS-HA-tdPCP-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~3 in
No fluorescent

Linker12- GFP

the soma of neurons;
reporter in this

(also known as PP-GFP) +

D_C~5 in
construct.

CAG-miRFP-ActbUTR-

the neurites of

72xPBS

neurons.

(also known as PR-SF)

UBC-HexCoil_Ala-Linker48-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~10³in
Yes, in HeLa

Xpress-GCaMP6f-Linker12-
cells and
the soma of neurons;
cells and

I3_01
neurons.
D_C~10⁴in
neurons.

(also known as S1-GCaMP6f)

the neurites of

neurons. D_C=

250-1000 in

HeLa cells.

UBC-1M3U-Linker48-cAMPr-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~10²in
Yes, in HeLa

gsg-HA-Linker27-2L8HC4_15
cells and
the soma and
cells and

(also known as S2-cAMPr)
neurons.
neurites of
neurons.

neurons.

UBC-3VDX-Linker50-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~10²in
Yes, in HeLa

ExRaiAKAR-Linker3-V5-
cells and
the soma and
cells and

Linker27-5L6HC3_1
neurons.
neurites of
neurons.

(also known as S3-

neurons.

ExRaiAKAR)

UBC-I32_06B-Linker29-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~10²in
Yes, in neurons.

ExRaiCKAR-Linker3-OLLAS-

the soma and

Linker24-I32_06A

neurites of

(also known as S4-

neurons.

ExRaiCKAR)

UBC-1M3U-Linker48-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~10²in
Yes, in neurons.

RAB_EKARev-Linker3-VSVg-

the soma and

Linker27-2L8HC4_15

neurites of

(also known as S2-

neurons.

RAB_EKARev)

UBC-3VDX-Linker50-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~10²in
Yes, in neurons.

RAB_EKARev-Linker3-VSVg-

the soma and

Linker27-5L6HC3_1

neurites of

(also known as S3-

neurons.

RAB_EKARev)

UBC-O3_33-Linker48-HA-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~10²in
Yes, in HeLa

cAMPr-Linker27-5H2L_2
cells and
the soma and
cells and

(also known as S2a-cAMPr)
neurons.
neurites of
neurons.

neurons. D_C= 100-300

in HeLa

cells.

UBC-HexCoil_Ala-Linker12-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~10³in
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-GCaMP6f-Linker12-

the soma of neurons;

I3_01

D_C~10⁴in

the neurites of

neurons.

UBC-HexCoil_Ala-Linker48-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~10³in
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-GCaMP6f-Linker2G-

the soma of neurons;

KGC-Linker12-I3_01

D_C~10⁴in

the neurites of

neurons.

UBC-HexCoil_Ala-Linker12-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~10³in
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-jRCaMP1a-Linker12-

the soma of neurons;

I3_01

D_C~10⁴in

the neurites of

neurons.

UBC-I52_03B-Linker29-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~10²in
Not tested.

ExRaiCKAR-gsg-OLLAS-

the soma and

Linker24-I52_03A

neurites of

neurons.

UBC-1M3U-Linker50-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~10²in
Not tested.

ExRaiCKAR-gsg-OLLAS-

the soma and

Linker27-2L8HC4_15

neurites of

neurons.

UBC-I53_34B-Linker29-
Yes, in neurons.
No expression in
Not tested.

ExRaiCKAR-gsg-OLLAS-

neurons.

Linker24-I53_34A

UBC-T3_10-Linker50-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Not tested.

ExRaiCKAR-gsg-OLLAS-

neurons.

Linker27-5L8HC4_6

Syn-I3_01-Linker12-Xpress-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~2 in
Yes, in neurons.

GCaMP6f

the soma of neurons;

D_C~1.5 in

the neurites of

neurons.

Syn-HexCoil_Ala-Linker48-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~10³in
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-GCaMP6f-Linker12-

the soma of neurons;

I3_01

D_C~10⁴in

(S1-GCaMP6f in Syn promoter)

the neurites of

neurons.

UBC-O3_33-Linker48-cAMPr-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~40 in
Not tested.

HA-Linker27-CC_Pent

the soma of neurons;

D_C~10²in

the neurites of

neurons.

UBC-O3_33-Linker48-cAMPr-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~10²in
Not tested.

HA-Linker27-CC_Hept

the soma of neurons;

D_C~10³in

the neurites of

neurons.

UBC-ATC_HL3-Linker48-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~10²in
Not tested.

cAMPr-HA-Linker27-CC_Hept

the soma of neurons;

D_C~10³in

the neurites of

neurons.

UBC-T3_10-Linker48-cAMPr-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C~5 in
Not tested.

HA-Linker27-CC_Pent

the soma of neurons;

D_C~9 in

the neurites of

neurons.

UBC-3VDX-Linker48-cAMPr-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 6-15 in
Not tested.

HA-Linker27-CC_Pent

the soma of neurons;

D_C= 20-40 in

the neurites of

neurons.

UBC-ATC_HL3-Linker48-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 30-50 in
Not tested.

cAMPr-HA-Linker27-CC_Pent

the soma of

neurons; DC = 50-100 in

the neurites of

neurons.

UBC-T32_28-Linker48-cAMPr-
Yes, in neurons,
D_C~5 in
Not tested.

HA-Linker27-CC_Pent
but the
the soma of neurons;

expression
D_C= 10-20 in

was weak.
the neurites of

neurons.

UBC-p3Z_11-Linker24-Xpress-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

GCaMP6f

neurons.

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-EE-Linker4-RR

neurons.

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-LZA-Linker4-LZB

neurons.

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-ACIDp1-Linker4-

neurons.

BASEp1

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-DoNAp1-Linker4-

neurons.

DoNAp2

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-P3-Linker4-P4

neurons.

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-EE-Linker4-RR-

neurons.

Linker4-EE-Linker4-RR-

Linker4-EE

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-ACIDp1-Linker4-

neurons.

BASEp1-Linker4-ACIDp1-

Linker4-BASEp1-Linker4-

ACIDp1

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-EE-Linker2-RR

neurons.

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-EE-Linker6-RR

neurons.

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-E5-Linker4-K5

neurons.

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-E5-Linker4-K5-

neurons.

Linker4-E5-Linker4-K5-

Linker4-E5

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-E5-Linker2-K5

neurons.

CAG-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-CC_Di-Linker4-

neurons.

CC_Tri

UBC-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker24-CC_Hex2-Linker6-

neurons.

HOTag6

UBC-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker24-HOTag6-Linker6-

neurons.

CC_Hex2

UBC-V5-Linker3-ICUE3-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker24-CC_Hept-Linker6-

neurons.

CC_Tet

UBC-V5-Linker3-ICUE3-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker24-CC_Pent-Linker6-

neurons.

HexCoil_Ala-WPRE

UBC-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker24-CC_Hept-Linker6AP-

neurons.

CC_Tet

UBC-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker24-CC_Hept-Linker6AP-

neurons.

CC_Tet-Linker5EA-CC_Hex2

UBC-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker24-CC_Hept-Linker6-

neurons.

CC_Tet-Linker6-CC Hex2

UBC-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in neurons.
D_C= 1 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker24-HexCoil_Ala-

neurons.

Linker6-CC_Hept-Linker6-

CC_Hex2-Linker6-CC_Tet

CAG-2AN9 mutantl-Linker12-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~1.3 in
Yes, in HeLa

Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
HeLa cells. D_C= 1 in
cells and

neurons.
neurons.
neurons.

UBC-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-1D7A
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-1FRW-Linker12-Xpress-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

GCaMP6f
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-1L6W-Linker12-Xpress-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

GCaMP6f
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-1YAC-Linker12-Xpress-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

GCaMP6f
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-2AN9-Linker12-Xpress-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~1.6 in
Yes, in neurons.

GCaMP6f
cells and
HeLa cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-2AN9_mutant1-Linker12-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~1.6 in
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
HeLa cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-2AN9_mutant2-Linker12-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~1.6 in
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
HeLa cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-2IV1-Linker12-Xpress-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~1.5 in
Yes, in neurons.

GCaMP6f
cells and
HeLa cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-1M3U-Linker12-Xpress-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

GCaMP6f
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-2CG4
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-NLS-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-1D7A
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-NLS-1FRW-Linker12-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-NLS-1L6W-Linker12-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-NLS-1YAC-Linker12-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~12 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-NLS-2AN9-Linker12-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 2-20 in
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
HeLa cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-NLS-2AN9_mutant1-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 2-20 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker12-Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
HeLa cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-NLS-2AN9_mutant2-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 2-20 in
Yes, in neurons.

Linker12-Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
HeLa cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-NLS-2IV1-Linker12-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~ 4.5 in
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
HeLa cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-NLS-1M3U-Linker12-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 5-100 in
Yes, in neurons.

Xpress-GCaMP6f
cells and
HeLa cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-NLS-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-2CG4
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-LNP-HA-NLS-Linker24-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~7.5 in
Yes, in HeLa

Xpress-GCaMP6f +
cells.
HeLa cells.
cells.

CAG-miRFP-ActbUTR-

75xBoxB

(also known as LR-SF)

UBC-LNP-FLAG-NLS
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~5 in HeLa
Yes, in HeLa

Linker24-AKAR4
cells.
cells.
cells.

(also known as LP-AKAR4) +

CAG-miRFP-ActbUTR-

75xBoxB

(also known as LR-SF)

UBC-LNP-HA-NLS-Linker24-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C~5 in HeLa
Yes, in HeLa

AKAR4 +
cells.
cells.
cells.

CAG-miRFP-ActbUTR-

75xBoxB

(also known as LR-SF)

UBC-NLS-HA-tdPCP-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

Linker12-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

CAAX +
neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-miRFP-ActbUTR-72xPBS

UBC-NLS-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-tdPCP-CAAX +
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

UBC-miRFP-ActbUTR-72xPBS
neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-Xpress-GCaMP6f-
Yes, in HeLa
D_C= 1 in HeLa
Yes, in neurons.

Linker27-tdPCP-CAAX +
cells and
cells. D_C= 1 in
Not tested

UBC-miRFP-ActbUTR-72xPBS
neurons.
neurons.
in HeLa.

UBC-3VDX-Linker50-
Yes, in cultured
D_C~10²in
Yes, in neurons.

ExRaiAktAR-Linker3-V5-
mouse
the soma and
Not tested

Linker27-5L6HC3_1
hippocampal
neurites of
in HeLa.

(also known as S3-
neurons.
neurons.

ExRaiAktAR)

Certain embodiments of spatial multiplexing compositions and methods of the invention may be used to image fast cellular dynamics, such as those in neurons, under inexpensive single-camera microscopes with fluorescent sensors that can all be imaged in one shared optical channel (e.g. using all GFP-based sensors), because the imaging speed would then not be limited by the number of cameras available or any mechanical filter switching required to record from multiple channels. Use of spatial multiplexing compositions and methods of the invention can also free up optical channels for use for other purposes, such as cellular control. As a non-limiting example, the GFP channel may be used to observe cellular activity readout from multiple GFP-based sensors and then the red channel of the microscope used to operate red-light driven optogenetic tools (Chuong et al., 2014; Klapoetke et al., 2014).

SiRI Preparation and Use

An SiRI of the invention includes multiple components, each which may be independently selected. As used herein in reference to elements of SiRIs of the invention, the term “independently selected” means that each of a given type of element may differ from others of the same type of element in an SiRI and/or in multiple SiRIs in a cell. For example, though not intended to be limiting, an SiRI may include more than one reporter protein element and in instances when there are more than one, each may be selected so as to be different or the same as one or more other reporter protein elements in that SiRI. Similarly, in a cell that includes two or more SiRIs, each independently selected reporter protein element may be selected so as to be different than one or more other reporter protein elements in the cell, or may be selected so as to be the same as one or more other reporter protein elements in the cell. The independent election of elements in SiRIs of the invention, including reporter protein elements, RNA-binding protein elements, localization protein motif elements, protein linker elements, binding sequence elements may all be independently selected, thus permitting differences between SiRIs of the invention and permitting different SiRIs to be included in a single cell.

Different methods can be used to prepare SiRIs of the invention as is described herein using compositions capable of producing one or a plurality of SiRIs in a living cell. As used herein the term plurality means at least 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, or 1000. One such composition of the invention that can be used to prepare an SiRI using RNA-protein-binding-based clustering methods, is referred to herein as an RNA-protein binding (RPB) composition. Another composition of the invention that can be used to prepare an SiRI using protein self-assembly-based clustering of reporter molecules and to prepare an SiRI, is referred to herein as a protein self-assembly binding (PSA) composition. In certain embodiments of the invention, one or more different (PSA) compositions can be present in a live cell and produce one or more different SiRIs in that cell. In some embodiments of the invention, one or more different PSA compositions can be present in a live cell and produce one or more different SiRIs in that cell. In certain embodiments of the invention, one or more different RPB compositions and one or more different PSA compositions may be present in a live cell and produce one or more different SiRIs in that cell.

RPB and PSA Compositions

In certain embodiments of the invention an RPB composition comprises a fusion protein component and an RNA component. A fusion protein component of an RPB of the invention comprises independently selected elements such as (i) one or more independently selected reporter protein elements, (ii) one or more independently selected RNA binding protein elements; (iii) zero, one, or more independently selected epitope tag elements; (iv) zero, one, or more localization protein motif elements; and (v) zero, one, or more independently selected protein linker elements, wherein when present, each of the protein linker elements is positioned between two of the elements of (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv). An RNA component of an RPB composition of the invention comprises a plurality of independently selected RNA molecules, and each of the independently selected RNA molecules comprises a plurality of binding sequence elements that are recognized by the one or more RNA binding protein elements of (ii). It will be understood that in some embodiments, a composition of the invention comprises the sequences that encode the fusion protein of the RPB composition. For example, in some embodiments of the invention a composition of the invention includes a vector comprising sequences encoding an RPB fusion protein.

A PSA composition of the invention comprises a fusion protein component comprising independently selected elements, such as (a) one or more independently selected reporter protein element(s); (b) one or more independently selected self-assembly protein element(s); (c) zero, one, or more independently selected epitope tag element(s); (d) zero, one, or more protein localization motif element(s); and (e) zero, one, or more independently selected protein linker element(s), wherein when present, each of the protein linker elements is positioned between two of the elements of (a), (b), (c), and (d). It will be understood that in some embodiments, a composition of the invention comprises the sequences that encode the fusion protein of the PSA composition. For example, in some embodiments of the invention a composition of the invention includes a vector comprising sequences encoding a PSA fusion protein.

In both RPB and PSA compositions of the invention, the number of each type of element can differ or be the same in different prepared SiRIs. For example, an RPB and a PSA composition may each include one or more independently selected reporter protein elements, and so in some embodiments of the invention, each RPB and PSA has one, two, or other of the same number of independently selected reporter protein elements, and in certain embodiments of the invention each RPB and PSA has a different number of independently selected reporter protein elements. It will be understood that both situations may occur in a single cell, meaning that a cell may have the same number of independently selected reporter protein elements in two or more RPBs and/or PSAs, and may also have different independently selected reporter protein elements in each RPB and/or PSA in that cell. In some embodiments of RPB and PSA compositions of the invention, one or more of an independently selected element may be present. In some embodiments of the invention, the number of a particular element in an RPB and/or PSA composition is zero, meaning the element is not present in that component.

It will be understood that certain embodiments of the invention comprise nucleic acid sequences that encode protein elements as described herein. Compositions of the invention may be prepared using a nucleic acid sequence encoding one or more of: a reporter protein element, a localization protein element, an epitope tag element, a protein linker element, a binding sequence element, a self-assembly protein element, or a variant thereof.

Reporter Protein Elements

The invention in part, includes methods with which to perform simultaneous readout of a plurality of reporter proteins that can each be independently selected by the practitioner. As a result, a practitioner can select a plurality different reporters to include in methods and compositions of the invention and when present in a cell, a signal from each of the plurality of reporter proteins can be detected singly or can be detected simultaneously with one or more other of the reporter proteins in the cell. As a non-limiting example, a practitioner can select three different reporter proteins, reporters A, B, and C, and include the reporters in different compositions in a cell, and read the signals of the reporter proteins one at a time, two at a time, or all three simultaneously.

RPBs and PSAs of the invention comprise a fusion protein comprising one or more independently selected reporter protein elements. Non-limiting examples of a reporter protein element that can be included in compositions and methods of the invention are: a voltage indicator polypeptide, a calcium indicator polypeptide, a potassium indicator polypeptide, a pH indicator polypeptide, and a magnesium indicator polypeptide. Additional non-limiting examples of reporter protein elements that can be included in certain embodiments of methods and compositions of the invention are: GCaMP6, GCaMP6f, GCaMP6m, GCaMP6s, jGCaMP7, jGCaMP7f, jGCaMP7m, jGCaMP7s, jGCaMP7b, jGCaMP7c, GCaMP-X, jRGECO1, jRCaMP1, NIRGECO, BCaMP, ICUE, ICUE3, cAMPr, Epac-based cAMP indicator, AKAR, AKAR4, ExRai-AKAR, ExRai-AKAR2, CKAR, ExRai-CKAR, EKARev, and RAB-EKARev. In some embodiments of the invention an independently selected reporter protein element is a GCaMP6f polypeptide, and in certain embodiments of the invention an independently selected reporter protein element is an ICUE3 polypeptide.

It will be understood that the methods and compositions of the invention may include one or more of numerous additional reporter proteins and that a practitioner will be able to select and include one or more independently selected reporter proteins such as those described herein and those otherwise available. Non-limiting examples of fluorescence reporter proteins that can be included in certain embodiments of methods and compositions of the invention are described in the ‘Fluorescent Biosensor Database’ (available at //biosensordb.ucsd.edu/), which lists numerous reporter proteins that can be used in compositions and methods of the invention.

Epitope Tag Elements

RPBs and PBAs of the invention comprise a fusion protein comprising zero, one, or more independently selected epitope tag elements, which may also be referred to herein as protein tags. In some embodiments of compositions and methods of the invention, a plurality of protein tags are included in a single fusion protein. The inclusion of a plurality of protein tags in one fusion protein results in tags capable for use as protein barcodes. Non-limiting examples of epitope tags that may be included in an embodiment of an RPB or a PBA composition of the invention are: an Xpress tag, an HA tag, and a V5 tag, an OLLAS tag, a VSVg tag, an S1 (Strep I) tag, an NWS (Strep II) tag, an E epitope (E tag), a FLAG tag, an E2 tag, an AU1 tag, an AU5 tag, an Myc tag, a Spot tag, a NE tag, an AviTag, a C-tag, a Calmodulin-tag, a polyglutamate tag, an Rho1D4-tag, an S-tag, an SBP-tag, a Softag 1, a Softag 3, a TC tag, and a Ty tag. As indicated elsewhere herein, in some embodiments of compositions of the invention the number of epitope tags in a fusion protein of an RPB or PBA of the invention is zero. Protein tags are polypeptide sequences that have been genetically added onto a recombinant protein. The preparation and use of epitope tags are routinely practiced in the art and numerous protein epitope tags and their encoding sequences are known and are suitable for use in compositions and methods of the invention.

Localization Protein Motif Elements

RPBs and PBAs of the invention comprise a fusion protein comprising zero, one, or more independently selected localization protein motif elements. In some embodiments of compositions and methods of the invention, a plurality of localization protein motifs elements are included in a single fusion protein. As indicated elsewhere herein, in some embodiments of compositions of the invention the number of localization protein motif elements included in a fusion protein of an RPB or PBA of the invention is zero. Localization protein motifs are proteins that are capable of delivering fusion proteins of RPBs and PBAs of the invention from their site of synthesis in a cell to their intended location in the cell and may be referred to as trafficking sequences/motifs and targeting sequences/motifs. Methods of preparing and using localization protein motif elements are routinely practiced in the art and numerous types of known localization protein motifs and their encoding sequences, are suitable for use in compositions and methods of the invention. In certain embodiments of methods and compositions of the invention a localization protein motif comprises one or more of a subcellular localization protein and a trafficking protein. Non-limiting types of localization protein motifs that may be used in certain embodiments of the invention are nucleus localization motif, plasma membrane localization motifs, and synapse localization motifs. Further information available in: Martin, K. C. & a. Ephrussi (2009) Cell 136, 719-730; Negi, S. et al. (2015) Database Vol. 2015: article ID bav003; Donnes, P. & A. Hoglund (2004) Geno. Prot. Bioinfo. Vol. 2 No. 4: 209-215, each of which is incorporated by reference herein.

Protein Linker Elements

RPBs and PBAs of the invention comprise a fusion protein comprising zero, one, or more independently selected protein linker elements, which may also be referred to herein as “linkers”. Linkers are polypeptides that, when present, are positioned between other types of elements of an RPB and/or PBA of the invention. Non-limiting examples of positioning of linkers in a fusion protein of the invention are: a linker positioned between a reporter protein element and an epitope tag element, a linker between two epitope tag elements, two or more linkers between an RNA binding protein element and a reporter protein element, and two or more linkers between two RNA binding protein elements. Different types of linkers can be used in embodiments of the invention. For example, in some embodiments of compositions and methods of the invention a protein linker element comprises one or more glycine-rich linkers. Non-limiting examples of glycine-rich linkers comprise one or more of: a GSG linker, a (GGSGGT)×2 linker (SEQ ID NO: 13), a (GGSGGT)×4 linker (SEQ ID NO: 14), a (GGSGGSGGT)×3 linker (SEQ ID NO: 15), a (GGGS)×2 linker (SEQ ID NO: 67), and a (GGGS)×4 linker (SEQ ID NO: 68). Other glycine-rich linkers are known and routinely used in the art and a skilled artisan will recognize additional glycine-rich linkers suitable for use in compositions and methods of the invention. In some embodiments of the invention, a protein linker element comprises one or more non-glycine-rich linkers. Non-limiting examples of non-glycine-rich linkers that may be used in embodiments of compositions and methods of the invention are: (EAAAK)×2 (SEQ ID NO: 71), and APAPAP (SEQ ID NO: 69). Other non-glycine-rich linkers are known and routinely used in the art and a skilled artisan will recognize additional non-glycine-rich linkers suitable for use in compositions and methods of the invention.

A linker protein used in an embodiment of the invention may be a flexible linker or a rigid linker and may include at least 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 30, 25, or 40 amino acids. Additional linker proteins and their encoding polynucleotides are known and routinely used in the art and may be included in some embodiments of compositions and methods of the invention, see for example: Chichili, V. P. R, et al., Protein Science 2013 Vol 22:153-167; Chen, X. et al., Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013 Oct. 15; 65(10): 1357-1369; Arai et al. Protein Eng. 2001 August; 14(8):529-32; and Klein, J. S., et al. (2014) Protein Engineering, Design & Selection vol. 27 no. 10 pp. 325-330, each of which is incorporated herein by reference.

RNA binding protein elements

RPBs of the invention comprise a fusion protein comprising one or more independently selected RNA binding protein elements. Each independently selected RNA binding protein element recognizes and selectively binds its partner binding sequence, which is present in the cell as an RNA component of the RPB. Non-limiting examples of RNA binding protein element that may be used in embodiments of the invention are non-programmable RNA binding elements and programmable RNA binding elements. Non-limiting examples of independently selected non-programmable RNA binding elements that can be included in compositions and methods of the invention are an MS2 coat protein, a PP7 coat protein, a Lambda N protein, a Q-beta coat protein, a BglG protein, a U1Ap protein, HTLV-1 Rex protein, a TAT protein, an REV protein, and an eiF4A protein. Non-limiting examples of independently selected programmable RNA binding elements that can be included in compositions and methods of the invention are one or more of a Pumilio homology domain (PumHD) and a Pumilio-based assembly (Pumby).

It will be understood that the methods and compositions of the invention may include one or more of other known RNA binding protein elements and that a practitioner will be able to select and include one or more independently selected non-programmable and/or programmable RNA binding protein elements such as those described herein and those otherwise available. Non-limiting examples of programmable RNA-binding proteins that can be included in certain embodiments of methods and compositions of the invention are described in Adamala, K. et al., (2016) PNAS; E2579-E2588, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1519368113.

RNA Components of RPBs

An RPB of the invention comprises a plurality of independently selected RNA molecules comprising a plurality of independently selected binding sequence elements. Each independently selected binding sequence recognizes and selectively binds its partner RNA binding protein element, which is present in the cell in the fusion protein component of the RPB. In some embodiments of the invention the plurality of the independently selected binding sequence elements includes ten or more binding sequences. In certain embodiments of the invention the plurality of the independently selected binding sequence elements includes at least 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 40, or 50 binding sequences. A composition of the invention may include one or a plurality of independently selected binding sequences. Non-limiting examples of binding sequence elements that may be included in an embodiment of the invention are: an MS2 binding sequence, a PP7 binding sequence, and a lambda N binding sequence (BoxB), a Q-beta binding sequence, a BglG binding sequence, an U1Ap aptamer sequence, an HTLV-1 Rex responsive element (RxRE), a TAR sequence, an RRE sequence, and an eiF4A aptamer sequence. Other binding sequences are known and routinely used in the art and a skilled artisan will recognize additional non-glycine-rich linkers suitable for use in certain compositions and methods of the invention. Further information is present in Chen, X., et al. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013 Oct. 15; 65(10): 1357-1369 and Klein, J. S., et al. (2014) Protein Engineering, Design & Selection vol. 27 no. 10 pp. 325-330, each of which is incorporated herein by reference.

Binding Protein Elements: Binding Sequence Elements

Binding protein elements: binding sequence elements are also referred to herein as “binding pairs”. A number of binding pairs are disclosed herein and known and routinely used in the art. Non-limiting examples of binding pairs that may be used in compositions and methods of the invention are: MS2 coat protein: MS2 binding sequence, PP7 coat protein: PP7 binding sequence, Lambda N protein: lambda N binding sequence (BoxB), Q-beta coat protein: Q-beta binding sequence, BglG protein: BglG binding sequence, U1Ap protein: U1Ap aptamer sequence, HTLV-1 Rex protein: HTLV-1 Rex responsive element (RxRE), TAT protein: TAR sequence, REV protein: RRE sequence, and eiF4A protein: eiF4A aptamer sequence. Other binding pairs and their encoding sequences are known and routinely used in the art and a skilled artisan will recognize additional binding pairs suitable for use in certain compositions and methods of the invention.

Additional details, such as a binding sequence and a binding partner name are provided after the following non-limiting examples of protein tags that may be included in compositions and methods of the invention are: AviTag, which permits biotinylation by the enzyme BirA, thereby permitting the protein to be isolated by streptavidin (GLNDIFEAQKIEWHE, SEQ ID NO: 82); C-tag, Calmodulin-tag, which comprises a peptide binds calmodulin KRRWKKNFIAVSAANRFKKISSSGAL, SEQ ID NO: 83); a polyglutamate tag, which binds anion-exchange resins such as Mono-Q (EEEEEE, SEQ ID NO: 84); an E-tag, which is a peptide that binds an antibody comprising the sequence: GAPVPYPDPLEPR (SEQ ID NO: 79, which is also referred to herein as “E_epitope); a FLAG-tag, which binds antibody comprising the sequence: DYKDDDDK (SEQ ID NO: 80); an HA-tag, which binds a sequence set forth as YPYDVPDYA (SEQ ID NO: 75); a His-tag; a Myc-tag; an NE-tag, which comprises an 18-amino-acid synthetic peptide TKENPRSNQEESYDDNES (SEQ ID NO: 85) that binds a monoclonal IgG1 antibody; a Rho1D4-tag, which comprises nine amino acids of the intracellular C-terminus of bovine rhodopsin (TETSQVAPA, SEQ ID NO: 86); an S-tag, which is derived from Ribonuclease A (KETAAAKFERQHMDS, SEQ ID NO: 87); an SBP-tag, which binds streptavidin (MDEKTTGWRGGHVVEGLAGELEQLRARLEHHPQGQREP, SEQ ID NO: 88); Softag 1, for mammalian expression (SLAELLNAGLGGS, SEQ ID NO: 89); Softag 3, for prokaryotic expression (TQDPSRVG, SEQ ID NO: 90); Spot-tag, which binds a nanobody, set forth as: PDRVRAVSHWSS (SEQ ID NO: 91); Strep-tag, which binds to streptavidin or the modified streptavidin called streptactin (Strep-tag II: WSHPQFEK, SEQ ID NO: 92); TC tag, which binds FlAsH and ReAsH biarsenical compounds (CCPGCC, SEQ ID NO: 93); a Ty tag (EVHTNQDPLD, SEQ ID NO: 94); a V5 tag, which binds an antibody (GKPIPNPLLGLDST, SEQ ID NO: 76); a VSV-tag, which binds an antibody (YTDIEMNRLGK, SEQ ID NO: 78); and an Xpress tag (DLYDDDDK, SEQ ID NO: 74).

Self-Assembly Protein Elements

A PSA of the invention comprises one or more of an independently selected self-assembly protein element. Self-assembly proteins are capable of take a defined physical arrangement without outside guidance. Some embodiments of the invention comprise self-assembly proteins that are intramolecular self-assembly proteins. Certain embodiments of the invention comprise self-assembly proteins that are intermolecular self-assembly proteins.

Non-limiting examples of self-assembly proteins that can be used in embodiments of the invention are: a polyhedron-forming protein, a coiled-coil forming protein, a supramolecular self-assembly protein, and a protein oligomer. Non-limiting examples of a polyhedron-forming protein that may be used include: I3-01, O3-33, ATC-HL3, and 3VDX. Non-limiting examples of a coiled-coil forming protein include HexCoil-Ala, 5H2L_2, EE, and RR. Non-limiting examples of a supramolecular self-assembly protein that can be used are: 2AN9 and 1M3U. Non-limiting examples of a protein oligomer that can be used are: 5L6HC3_1 and 2L8HC4_15. Other self-assembly proteins are known and routinely used in the art and a skilled artisan will recognize additional self-assembly proteins suitable for use in certain compositions and methods of the invention.

Preparing and Using SiRIs

SiRIs of the invention can be prepared and used in methods of the invention in individual cells. Compositions that may be used in embodiments of the invention to prepare SiRIs in a cell comprise RPB and PSA compositions. The terms “PSA-based SiRI” and RPB-based SiRI” mean an SiRI prepared from a PSA composition or an RPB composition, respectively. In some embodiments of the invention one, two, or more independently selected RPB compositions that are delivered into a cell produce one or more SiRIs in that cell. In some embodiments of the invention one, two, or more independently selected PSA compositions that are delivered into a cell produce one or more SiRIs in that cell. In certain embodiments of the invention one, two, or more independently selected RPB compositions and one, two, or more PSA compositions are delivered into a cell and in the cell, the RPB and PSA compositions produce SiRIs in that cell. In some embodiments, methods of the invention may include preparing two or more different clusters that are formed from two or more independently selected reporter protein elements and positioned in the cell, wherein each reporter protein element is capable of generating an identifiable signal.

In some embodiments of the invention, two or a plurality of RPB compositions can be delivered into a cell and form SiRIs that include components of the RPB compositions. The SiRIs may include different elements because of the independent selection of elements in the RPB compositions. In some embodiments of the invention, two or a plurality of PAS compositions can be delivered into a cell and form SiRIs that include components of the PSA compositions. The SiRIs may include different elements because of the independent selection of elements in the PSA compositions. In some embodiments of the invention, two or a plurality of RPB compositions and PSA compositions can be delivered into a cell and form SiRIs that include components of the RPB composition and SiRIs that include components of the PSA compositions. There may be differences between the SiRIs prepared using RPB compositions, differences between the SiRIs prepared using PSA compositions, and differences between SiRIs prepared using PSA compositions and SiRIs prepared using RPB compositions, and the differences can be predetermined because of the independent selection of elements in the RPB and PSA compositions.

SiRIs prepared and present in a cell can be used in methods of the invention to determine one or more physiological process or characteristic of the cell. Because of the options to include a plurality of independently selected elements in the SiRIs prepared using RPB and/or PSA compositions of the invention, it is possible to determine two or more simultaneous physiological processes or characteristics of the same cell. In some embodiments the invention one, two, or more RPB and/or PSA compositions of the invention can be placed into a cell and used in methods to determine one or more physiological processes in the cell.

In a non-limiting example, preparation of one or a plurality of SiRIs in a cell comprises the delivery into a cell of at least one RPB and/or PSA composition. Using either an RPB or PSA composition, fusion proteins are expressed in the cell. The expressed fusion proteins include a plurality of each of two or more independently selected reporter protein elements each capable of generating an identifiable signal. As used herein the term “identifiable signal” means that at least by using methods of the invention a signal generated by a reporter protein indicates the identity of the reporter protein generating the signal. The method also includes forming one or more clusters from the plurality of the two or more independently selected reporter protein elements in the cell, wherein each of the two or more independently selected reporter protein elements are in different clusters. The presence of the independently selected elements in the RPB and/or PSA compositions present in the cell result in the formation of clusters in the cell that include the reporter protein elements of that RPB or PSA, respectively.

As a non-limiting example, if one or more RPB compositions are present in a cell, the individually selected RNA binding protein elements bind with the independently selected RNA molecules of the RNA component that is also in the cell. As described elsewhere herein, each independently selected binding sequence recognizes and selectively binds its partner RNA binding protein element present in the fusion protein component of the RPB. The binding of the binding partners results in the formation of clusters that include the fusion protein component(s) and the RNA component (s) of one or a plurality of the RPB composition(s). In another non-limiting example, if a PSA composition is present in a cell, the independently selected self-assembly protein elements in the fusion protein component assemble to form clusters of the fusion protein components of the PSA composition.

Certain embodiments of methods of the invention include positioning the one or more formed clusters in the cell such that a distance between a cluster formed with one of the independently selected reporter protein elements and a cluster formed with another of the independently selected reporter protein elements is sufficient to (i) resolve the signal generated by the two independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned clusters and (ii) simultaneously determine the signal generated by each of the independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned clusters. In some embodiments of the invention a distance between a cluster formed that includes one of the independently selected reporter protein elements and a cluster formed that includes another of the independently selected reporter protein elements is about 1-2 microns, 1-3 microns, 1-4 microns, 1-5 microns, 1-6 microns, 1-7 microns, or 1-8 microns. In certain embodiments the distance between clusters that include two different independently selected reporter proteins is 2-8 microns.

Elements included in the RPB and PSA compositions can be independently selected to position the SiRIs that are prepared from the compositions. As a non-limiting example, in RPB and PSA compositions, a localization protein motif may be selected and included to assist with positioning the formed clusters in a cell. As another non-limiting example, the number and length of linkers included in a fusion protein of an RPB and/or PSA composition can assist in determining a physical conformation/size of a formed cluster, thereby assisting in positioning the cluster. Certain embodiments of methods of the invention include resolving signals generated by the independently selected reporter proteins in positioned clusters and detecting changes in the signals as measure of changes in physiological processes in the cell. Non-limiting examples of combinations of linkers, localization elements, and other elements that can be selected at least in part to determine size and position of SiRI clusters of the invention are described herein. Additional combinations of linkers, localization elements, and other elements of SiRIs of the invention are also suitable for use in methods of the invention and in view of the teaching provided herein can be prepared and utilized using routine methods.

Methods and components for preparing and using SiRIs of the invention include a number of independently selected elements, thereby permitting flexibility in SiRI design. For example, it will be understood that the individually selected binding pairing generated by a first RPB in a cell may be different from the independently selected binding pairing generated by a second RPB in the same cell, thereby resulting in the formation of different clusters, one including components of the first RPB and another including components of the second RPB. Similarly, it will be understood that the individually selected self-assembly protein elements in a first PSA composition in a cell may be different from the independently selected self-assembly protein elements in a second PSA composition in the same cell, thereby resulting in the formation of different clusters, one including components of the first PSA and another including components of the second PSA.

As described herein, different elements in one or more components in RPBs and PSAs in a cell result in one or more of: the same cluster formation, different cluster formation, the same reporter signal, different reporter signal, the same epitope tags, different epitope tags, etc. One of skill in the art will recognize the variations of elements in components of RPBs and PSAs of the invention and methods of their use for imaging in a cell, including simultaneous imaging of different physiological processes in a single cell.

Embodiments of methods of the invention may also include detecting the identifiable signals generated from the independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned clusters; and the analysis of the detected signals as a determination of one or more physiological processes of the cell.

Signals

Certain methods of the invention include detecting a signal generated reporter protein elements that are present in one or more SiRIs in a cell. In some aspects of the invention a signal generated by a reporter protein is a fluorescent signal. An advantage of the invention described herein is the ability to detect signals from two or more different fluorescent reporter protein elements and to be able to distinguish between the two. Using methods and compositions of the invention it is possible to distinguish between the signals of two different fluorescent reporter protein elements even when the two reporters generate spectrally overlapping signals. In some embodiments of the invention a signal is a fluorescent signal. In certain embodiments of the invention a signal is a luminescent signal.

A reporter protein signal may be generated as a result of stimulation of the cell comprising the reporter protein. In some embodiments of the invention the stimulation of the cell is an external stimulation. Non-limiting examples of agents that can be used to externally stimulate a cell comprise: comprise one or more of tetradecanoylphorbol acetate (PMA), (S)-3,5-Dihydroxyphenylglycine (DHPG), N-Methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA), forskolin, a cancer drug, an antibody, a toxin, an agonist of a receptor, an antagonist of a receptor, an electrical field, a magnetic field, light, gas, a thermal change, a gravity change, a pH change, whole cell patch claim of the cell. Other agents that can be used to stimulate a cell comprising one or more SiRIs of the invention and a skilled artisan will be able to apply agents described herein as well as other agents to stimulate the cell. Factors that may be involved in applying stimulation to a cell that comprises one or more SiRIs include, but are not limited to one or more of: stimulation intensity, stimulation frequency, pattern of stimulation, and combinations of stimulating agents. These factors and their application are known and routinely practiced in the art and can be applied to embodiments of methods of the invention. As described herein, embodiments of methods of the invention include detecting and/or monitoring physiological response(s) to a stimulation of a cell comprising one or more SiRIs of the invention, and methods and compositions of the invention also permit simultaneous imaging of two or more different physiological processes in a single cell. In some embodiments of the invention one or more different agents can be used to stimulate a cell and can be administered simultaneously or sequentially. In some aspects of the invention the cell is not externally stimulated.

Analysis

Methods and compositions of the invention can be used to detect and analyze physiological processes in a cell that comprises one of more SiRIs of the invention. The flexibility of components in RPB and PSA compositions and in SiRIs of the invention permit detection and analysis of two or more different physiological processes in the same cell, and also permit detection and analysis of two or more simultaneous physiological processes in the same cell. To detect and assess a physiological process in a cell that includes one or more SiRIs of the invention a practitioner may externally stimulate the cell and determine the signals generated by the independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned SiRIs. In certain embodiments of the invention a practitioner may determine signals generated by the independently selected reporter protein elements in the positioned SiRIs in the absence of stimulation. Non-limiting examples of physiological processes that can be assessed using compositions and methods of the invention include: a function of the cell, a response of the cell, ion flux in the cell, a therapeutic response of the cell; and an activation of the cell, etc.

An element in detection and analysis methods of the invention is detecting the signals generated by the independently selected reporter protein elements that are present in SiRIs in a cell. Detection methods may include, but are not limited to one or more of: video microscopy, computerized microscopic imaging, fluorescence microscopy, and confocal microscopy, light microscopy, light sheet microscopy, light field microscopy, and endoscopy. Methods used to detect physiological processes in a cell comprising one or more SiRIs of the invention included, but are not limited to: live cell imaging, immunostaining, RNA FISH, live cell recording, an immunostaining method, an in situ hybridization method, determining fluorescence intensity, subtracting background fluorescence, a cluster/puncta localization means, expansion microscopy, fluorescence microscopy, light microscopy, and fluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopy. It will be understood that in addition to detection methods described herein, additional art-known detection methods can also be used to detect a signal generated by a reporter protein, an epitope tag, or another element of an SiRI of the invention.

Methods for analysis of signals detected from one or more SiRIs in a cell may include data analysis, analysis programs, algorithms, etc. Information is provided herein regarding suitable methods of data analysis and a skilled artisan will recognize additional resources and programs suitable to evaluate data generated using compositions and methods of the invention.

Cells and Subjects

SiRIs of the invention can be used in single cells to detect and assess physiological processes, activities, changes, etc. in the cell. Compositions and methods of the invention may be used in prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Compositions and methods of the invention can also be used in artificial cells. Certain embodiments of the invention include preparing one or more SiRIs in a cell that is a mammalian cell; including but not limited to a human cell, a non-human primate cell, a cell of a dog, a cell of a cat, a cell of a rodent, etc. In some embodiments of the invention, compositions and methods of the invention may be used in non-mammalian cells; including but not limited to insect cells, avian cells, fish cells, invertebrate cells, single-cell organisms, plant cells, etc. Compositions and methods of the invention may be used in non-excitable cells and in excitable cells, the latter of which includes cells able to produce and respond to electrical stimulation/signals. Examples of excitable cell types include but are not limited, to neurons, muscle cells, cardiac cells, and secretory cells (such as pancreatic cells, adrenal medulla cells, pituitary cells, etc.). As used herein the term “plurality” when used in context of cells, means two or more cells.

Non-limiting examples of cells that may be used in methods of the invention include: neuronal cells, nervous system cells, cardiac cells, circulatory system cells, connective tissue cells, visual system cells, auditory system cells, secretory cells, endocrine cells, and muscle cells.

In some embodiments, a cell used in conjunction with a method of the invention is a healthy normal cell, which is not known to have a disease, disorder, or abnormal condition. In some embodiments, a cell used in conjunction with a method of the invention is an abnormal cell, for example, a cell that is believed to have, or has been has been diagnosed as having, a disorder, disease, or condition, including, but not limited to a degenerative cell, a neurological disease-bearing cell, a cell model of a disease or condition, an injured cell, etc. In some embodiments of the invention, a cell is a control cell.

Compositions and methods of the invention may be used in cells from culture, cells in solution, cells obtained from subjects, isolated cells, recombinant cells, and/or cells in a subject (in vivo cells). Compositions and method of the invention may be used in cultured cells, cultured tissues (e.g., brain slice preparations, organ preparations, etc.), and in living subjects, etc. As used herein, a the term “subject” is used to refer to a human, non-human primate, cow, horse, pig, sheep, goat, dog, cat, bird, rodent, insect, or other vertebrate or invertebrate organism in which a method of the invention is applied. In certain embodiments of the invention, a subject is a mammal and in certain embodiments of the invention a subject is a human.

Controls and Candidate Compound Testing and Screening

One or more physiological processes in a single cell can be detected and analyzed using embodiments of methods of the invention. Methods of the invention can also be used to detect and analyze a change in a physiological process or a condition in a single cell. Certain embodiments of the invention permit determination of the presence or absence of one or more physiological processes, as well as changes or modulations of such processes in a cell. Some embodiments of methods of the invention can be used to identify an effect of candidate agent on a cell. For example, though not intended to be limiting, a cell comprising one or more SiRIs of the invention can be contacted with a candidate agent and one or more physiological processes of the cell analyzed. The results of the analysis can be compared with an analysis of a control cell that was not contacted with the candidate agent. In some embodiments of the invention one or more SiRIs can be prepared in a single cell and one or more of the same SiRIs can be prepared in other cells. These “identical” cells can then be used to assess an effect of candidate compounds on individual cells. A “test” cell may be a cell in which the activity in the cell may be tested or assayed. Results obtained using assays and tests of a test cell using a method of the invention may be compared results obtained from the assays and tests performed in other test cells or assays and/or may be compared to a control value.

As used herein a control value may be a predetermined value, which can take a variety of forms. It can be a single cut-off value, such as a median or mean. It can be established based upon comparative groups, such as cells or tissues that have been imaged under similar conditions using a method of the invention, but are not contacted with a candidate compound with which the test cell is contacted and imaged. Another example of comparative groups may include cells or tissues that have a disorder or condition and groups without the disorder or condition. Another comparative group may be cells from a group with a family history of a disease or condition and cells from a group without such a family history. A predetermined value can be arranged, for example, where a tested population is divided equally (or unequally) into groups based on results of testing. Those skilled in the art are able to select appropriate control groups and values for use in comparative methods of the invention.

As a non-limiting example of use of method of the invention to assess the presence or absence of a change in a cell as a means to identify a candidate compound, a physiological process in a cell may be determined using a method of the invention in culture or in a subject and the cell may then be contacted the candidate compound and re-determined using a method of the invention. Any change in the physiological process of the cell as determined using methods of the invention, may indicate an effect of the candidate compound on the cell. In some embodiments of the invention, methods of the invention may be used to determine and/or analyze a physiological process in one or more test cells before and after the one or more test cells is contacted with a candidate compound and the before and after results can be compared to determine whether or not contact with the candidate compound resulted in a change in the physiological process in the cell.

A cell, tissue, and/or subject that include a cell comprising one or more an SiRIs of the invention may be monitored for the presence or absence of a change that occurs in the cell. As a non-limiting example, in a cell, a change in a physiological process in the cell may include a change in depolarization of the cell, a change in a depolarization-mediated cell characteristic, response to stimuli, an action potential, pH change, release of a neurotransmitter, etc.

Certain Additional Methods

As described elsewhere herein, some embodiments of methods of the invention include preparing a cell that contains one type of RPB-based SiRIs, resulting in a cell in which all SiRIs are the same as each other. Certain embodiments of methods of the invention include preparing a cell that comprises two or more types of RPB-based SiRIs, resulting in a cell that includes two or more different SiRIs. Similarly, some embodiments of methods of the invention include preparing a cell that contains one type of PSA-based SiRIs, resulting in a cell in which all SiRIs are the same as each other. Certain embodiments of methods of the invention include preparing a cell that comprises two or more types of PSA-based SiRIs, resulting in a cell that includes two or more different SiRIs. In addition, some embodiments of methods of the invention include preparing a cell that contains one type of RPB-based SiRIs and one type of PSA-based SiRIs, resulting in a cell in which all SiRIs prepared from the RPB composition are the same as each other and the SiRIs prepared from the PSA composition are the same as each other. Certain embodiments of methods of the invention include preparing a cell that comprises two or more types of RPB-based SiRIs, resulting in a cell that includes two or more different SiRIs generated from RPB compositions and two or more different SiRIs generated from PSA compositions.

The resulting cell prepared using one of these combinations of RPB and/or PSA compositions can be used to identify the effect of a candidate agent on a physiological process in the cell. In such a method the cell would be prepared as described elsewhere herein and the RPB and/or PSA composition(s) would form and position clusters as described. Methods of the invention would then include contacting the cell with a candidate agent of interest, and detecting the presence or absence of an identifiable signal generated from the independently selected reporter protein elements present in the positioned clusters. The detected signals are then analyzed and compared to control results obtained in a cell not contacted with the candidate agent, and the comparison indicates whether or not the contact with candidate agent resulted in a change in a physiological process or processes in the contacted cell. Different candidate agents can be tested using methods of the invention. Non-limiting examples of candidate agents include: pharmaceutical agent, an electrical agent, a temperature change agent, an environmental agent, etc. A skilled artisan will recognize additional candidate agents that can be tested using compositions and methods of the invention.

Element Functional Variants

Proteins and RNA molecules used in methods and compounds of the invention may include functional variants of molecules disclosed herein and functional variants art-known molecules. For example, functional variants of reporter protein elements, localization protein elements, epitope tag elements, protein linker elements, binding sequence elements, self-assembly protein elements—and their encoding sequences, and functional variants of RNA component molecules can be used in methods of the invention. As used herein, the term “parent” when used in the context of a variant element of the invention means the element molecule of which the variant element molecule is the variant. Based on the teaching provided herein regarding elements that can be used in embodiments of the invention, functional variants of protein elements that have sufficient amino acid sequence similarity/identity to a parent protein element sequence and have at least a portion of the function of the parent protein element molecule can be prepared and used in embodiments of methods of the invention. Based on teaching provided herein regarding RNA molecule elements that can be used in embodiments of the invention, functional variants of the RNA molecule elements that have sufficient sequence similarity/identity to a parent RNA molecule element sequence and have at least a portion of the function of the parent RNA element molecule can be prepared and used in embodiments of methods of the invention.

As used herein, the term “identity” refers to the degree of relatedness or similarity between two or more polypeptide sequences [or polynucleotide (nucleic acid) sequences]. Sequence identity may be determined by the alignment and match between the sequences using standard methods. The percentage is obtained as the percentage of identical amino acids in two or more sequences taking account of gaps and other sequence features. The identity between polypeptide sequences can be determined by means of art-known procedures. Algorithms and programs are available and routinely used by those in the art to determine identity between polypeptide sequences and to determine identity between nucleic acid sequences. Non-limiting examples of programs and algorithms include BLASTP, BLASTN and FASTA (Altschul et al., NCB NLM NIH Bethesda Md. 20894; Altschul et al., 1990), Online BLAST programs from the National Library of Medicine are available, for example, at blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi.

The presence of functionality of a variant, for example the ability to be used in a method of the invention, can be determined using testing methods described herein. Functional variants of protein elements and RNA molecule elements disclosed herein can be used in compositions and methods of the invention. It will be understood that the level of sequence identity with a protein element or an RNA element of the invention, and the level of functionality with respect to methods of the invention can be characteristics used to identify protein element and RNA molecule element variants using teaching provided herein in conjunction with standard procedures for sequence alignment, comparisons, and knowledge of sequence modifications in the protein and nucleic acid arts.

A variant of a protein element (or its encoding sequence), or an RNA element includes one or more sequence modifications. As used herein the term “modified” or “modification” in reference to a protein sequence refers to a change such as one or more of an insertion, deletion, or substitution of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or more amino acids in the sequence as compared to the unmodified parent sequence. As used herein the term “modified” or “modification” in reference to a nucleic acid sequence refers to a change such as one or more of an insertion, deletion, or substitution of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 nucleic acids in a sequence. As used herein the term “nucleic acid” is used interchangeably with the term “polynucleotide”.

The sequence of a protein element or nucleic acid element can be modified with one or more substitutions, deletions, insertions, or other modifications and the resulting variant element can be tested using methods described herein for characteristics including, but not limited to: expression, cell localization, imaging, etc. Exemplary modifications include, but are not limited to conservative amino acid substitutions, which will produce molecules having functional characteristics similar to those of the parent molecule. Conservative amino acid substitutions are substitutions that do not result in a significant change in the activity or tertiary structure of a selected polypeptide or protein. Such substitutions typically involve replacing a selected amino acid residue with a different residue having similar physico-chemical properties. For example, substitution of Glu for Asp is considered a conservative substitution because both are similarly sized, negatively charged amino acids. Groupings of amino acids by physico-chemical properties are known to those of skill in the art. The following groups each contain amino acids that are conservative substitutions for one another: 1) Alanine (A), Glycine (G); 2) Aspartic acid (D), Glutamic acid (E); 3) Asparagine (N), Glutamine (Q); 4) Arginine (R), Lysine (K); 5) Isoleucine (I), Leucine (L), Methionine (M), Valine (V); 6) Phenylalanine (F), Tyrosine (Y), Tryptophan (W); 7) Serine (S), Threonine (T); and 8) Cysteine (C), Methionine (M) (see, e.g., Creighton, Proteins (1984)). RPB and PSA variant elements that include modifications such as, but not limited to one, two, three, four, or more conservative amino acid substitutions can be identified and tested for characteristics including, but not limited to: expression, cell localization, imaging characteristics, etc., using methods disclosed herein.

A protein element variant may include modifications that result in an amino acid sequence having at least 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, or 99% identity to its parent sequence. Some embodiments of compositions and methods of the invention may include a functional variant of one or more of a reporter protein element, a localization protein element, an epitope tag element, a protein linker element, a binding sequence element, a self-assembly protein element and the variant may include modifications that result in an amino acid sequence having at least 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, or 99% identity with the amino acid sequence of the parent molecule of the element. Some embodiments of the invention a composition and/or cell comprises one or more functional variants of a sequence encoding a protein element and/or one or more functional variants of an RNA molecule element.

It is understood in the art that the codon systems in different organisms can be slightly different, and that therefore where the expression of a given protein from a given organism is desired, the nucleic acid sequence can be modified for expression within that organism. Thus, in some embodiments, one or more of a reporter protein element, a localization protein element, an epitope tag element, a protein linker element, a binding sequence element, a self-assembly protein element or functional variant thereof, is encoded by a mammalian-codon-optimized nucleic acid sequence, which may in some embodiments be a human-codon optimized nucleic acid sequence.

Delivery of RPB and PSA Compositions

Delivery of a RPB and/or PSA compositions into a cell can be done using art-known delivery means. It is well known in the art how to prepare and utilize fusion proteins that comprise one or a plurality of protein sequences. In certain embodiments of the invention, a fusion protein comprising elements of an RPB and/or a PSA composition can be delivered into a cell. In some embodiments, delivery of an RPB and/or a PSA composition can be targeted to a particular cell or cell type utilizing routine means such as targeting sequences for delivery to, and expression in, a desired cell, tissue or region. Genetic targeting methods can be used to deliver an RPB and/or a PSA composition of the invention into a cell of a predetermined type, location within a subject, etc. Genetic targeting also relates to the control of the amount of expression of an RPB and/or a PSA composition that is expressed, and the timing of the expression. Routine genetic procedures can be used to control parameters of expression, such as but not limited to: the amount and/or timing of expression of a fusion protein of a RPB and/or a PSA composition in a cell.

Some embodiments of the invention include a reagent for delivering an RPB and/or a PSA composition into a cell, wherein the reagent comprises a vector comprising nucleic acid sequences encoding the protein elements of the RPB and/or a PSA composition fusion proteins. As used herein, the term “vector” refers to a nucleic acid molecule capable of transporting between different genetic environments another nucleic acid to which it has been operatively linked. The term “vector” also refers to a virus or organism that is capable of transporting the nucleic acid molecule. One type of vector is an episome, i.e., a nucleic acid molecule capable of extra-chromosomal replication. Some useful vectors are those capable of autonomous replication and/or expression of nucleic acids to which they are linked. Vectors capable of directing the expression of genes to which they are operatively linked are referred to herein as “expression vectors”. Other useful vectors, include, but are not limited to viruses such as lentiviruses, retroviruses, adenoviruses, and phages. Vectors useful in some methods of the invention can genetically insert a sensor polypeptide and a soma-targeting polypeptide of the invention into dividing and non-dividing cells and can insert a sensor polypeptide and a soma-targeting polypeptide of the invention into a cell that is an in vivo, in vitro, or ex vivo cell.

Vectors useful in methods of the invention may include additional sequences including, but not limited to, one or more signal sequences and/or promoter sequences, or a combination thereof. In certain embodiments of the invention, a vector may be a lentivirus, adenovirus, adeno-associated virus, or other vector that comprises a gene encoding a sensor polypeptide and a gene encoding a soma-targeting polypeptide of the invention. An adeno-associated virus (AAV) such as AAV8, AAV1, AAV2, AAV4, AAV5, AAV9, are non-limiting examples of vectors that may be used to express a fusion protein of the invention in a cell and/or subject. Expression vectors and methods of their preparation and use are well known in the art. Non-limiting examples of suitable expression vectors and methods for their use are provided herein.

Promoters that may be used in methods and vectors of the invention include, but are not limited to, cell-specific promoters or general promoters. Non-limiting examples promoters that can be used in vectors of the invention are: ubiquitous promoters, such as, but not limited to: CMV, CAG, CBA, and EF1a promoters; and tissue-specific promoters, such as but not limited to: Synapsin, CamKIIa, GFAP, RPE, ALB, TBG, MBP, MCK, TNT, and aMHC promoters. Methods to select and use ubiquitous promoters and tissue-specific promoters are well known in the art. A non-limiting example of a tissue-specific promoter that can be used to express a fusion protein of the invention in a cell such as a neuron is a synapsin promoter, which can be used to express an RBP and/or a PSA fusion protein of the invention in embodiments of methods of the invention. Additional tissue-specific promoters and general promoters are well known in the art and, in addition to those provided herein, may be suitable for use in compositions and methods of the invention. Additional methods for generating fusion proteins and recombinant polypeptides are known in the art may include use of prokaryotic and eukaryotic expression systems including but not limited to bacterial and mammalian expression systems.

The present invention in some aspects includes one or more methods of preparing and using vectors encoding one or more RPB and/or PSA fusion proteins, including the delivery of the vectors encoding PRB and/or PSA fusion proteins into a cell, expression of the encoded fusion protein in the cell, delivery of additional components of one or more RPB compositions into the cell, detecting signals generated by one or more reporter protein elements in SiRIs generated from the RPB and/or PSA compositions delivered into the cell. The present invention enables simultaneous detection of two or more physiological processes in a single cell. The PRB and PSA compositions of the invention and their use, have broad-ranging applications for determining simultaneous physiological processes within cells, drug screening, therapeutic testing, and research applications, some of which are describe herein.

EXAMPLES
Example 1. Clustering Fluorescent Reporter Proteins on RNA Scaffolds
Materials and Methods
Experimental Model and Subject Details

NEB Stable Competent E. coli (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, Mass.) were used for small-scale isolation of plasmids encoding repetitive RNA scaffolds and were grown in a shaking incubator (250 RPM) at 30° C. Small-scale isolations of all other plasmids were done with Z-Competent E. coli (Zymo Research, Ipswich, Mass.) grown in a shaking incubator (250 RPM) at 37° C.

All procedures involving animals at MIT were conducted in accordance with the US National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and approved by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Committee on Animal Care.

HeLa cells, passage 5-12 (ATCC) were maintained between 10% and 90% confluence at 37° C. with 5% CO2 in DMEM (Gibco, Waltham, Mass.) with the addition of 10% heat inactivated fetal bovine serum (HI-FBS) (Corning, Corning, N.Y.), 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Gibco, Waltham, Mass.), and 1% sodium pyruvate (Gibco, Waltham, Mass.). Cells were authenticated by the manufacturer and tested for mycoplasma contamination to their standard levels of stringency and were used herein because they are common cell lines for testing new tools. Transfection and recordings for experiments that did not involve post hoc RNA FISH proceeded in glass 24-well plates treated with 75 μL diluted Matrigel (250 μL Matrigel (Corning, Corning, N.Y.) diluted in 12 mL DMEM) per well at 37° C. for 30-60 minutes. Transfection and recordings for experiments involving post hoc RNA FISH proceeded in glass coverslips (Carolina Biological Supply, Burlington, N.C.) treated with the diluted Matrigel in glass 24-well plates.

Hippocampal neurons were prepared from postnatal day 0 or 1 Swiss Webster mice (Taconic Biosciences, Rensselaer, N.Y.) (both male and female mice were used) as previously described (Klapoetke et al., 2014) with the following modifications: dissected hippocampal tissue was digested with 50 units of papain (Worthington Biochem, Lakewood, N.J.) for 6-8 min, and the digestion was stopped with ovomucoid trypsin inhibitor (Worthington Biochem, Lakewood, N.J.). Cells were plated at a density of 20,000-30,000 per glass coverslip coated with diluted Matrigel in a 24-well plate. Neurons were seeded in 100 μL plating medium containing MEM (no glutamine, no phenol, Life Technologies, Carlsbad, Calif.), glucose (33 mM, Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.), holo-Transferrin bovine (0.01%, Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.), HEPES (10 mM, Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.), glutaGRO (2 mM, Corning, Corning, N.Y.), insulin (0.13%, Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.), B27 supplement (2%, Gibco, Waltham, Mass.), and HI-FBS. After cell adhesion, additional plating medium was added. AraC (0.002 mM, Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.) was added when glial density was 50-70% of confluence. Neurons were grown at 37° C. and 5% CO₂in a humidified atmosphere.

Molecular Cloning

The DNAs encoding the protein motifs (mammalian-codon optimized), the 24×MS2 binding sites (24×MBS), and the 24×PP7 binding sites (24×PBS) used in this study were synthesized by Epoch Life Science (Epoch Life Science, Sugar Land, Tex.) or GenScript (GenScript Biotech, Piscataway, N.J.). The 48×MS2 binding sites (48×MBS) and 72×PP7 binding sites (72×PBS) were cloned from 24×MS2 and 24×PP7 arrays using the restriction cloning method described in (Golding and Cox, 2004). The sensor vectors for RNA scaffold-based clustering strategies were cloned into the pAAV-UBC backbone. The scaffold vectors for RNA scaffold-based clustering strategies were cloned into the pAAV-CAG backbone. The vectors for protein scaffold-based clustering strategies were cloned into the pAAV-UBC, pAAV-Syn, or pAAV-CAG backbones. For control experiments with unassembled sensors in HeLa cells, pAAV-CAG-GCaMP6f and pcDNA3-CMV-ICUE3 were used. For control experiments with unassembled sensors in neurons, pAAV-UBC-GCaMP6f and pAAV-UBC-cAMPr were used. (Table 1, motif sequences; Table 2, all tested constructs and their Des.)

Small-scale isolation of plasmid DNA was performed with Plasmid Mini-Prep kits (Qiagen, Germantown, Md.), after transformation in either NEB Stable Competent E. coli (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, Mass.) for plasmids encoding repetitive RNA scaffolds or in Z-Competent DH5a E. coli (Zymo Research, Irvine, Calif.) for plasmids that did not encode repetitive RNA scaffolds, per manufacturers' protocols.

Transfection

The DNA was transiently transfected into HeLa cells using a TransIT-X2 Dynamic Delivery System kit (Minis Bio, Madison, Wis.). The 250-500 ng of total plasmid DNA per well was transfected into HeLa cells according to the manufacturer's protocol. Cell culture media in the wells was changed to fresh media 24 hours after transfection. The cells were then incubated for another 24 hours before live cell imaging.

Cultured neurons were transfected at 4-5 days in vitro (DIV) with a commercial calcium phosphate transfection kit (Invitrogen, Waltham, Mass.) as previously described (Piatkevich et al., 2018). Briefly, for transfection in each coverslip/well, 250 ng of each plasmid of interest, 500 ng pAAV-Syn-miRFP plasmid as a cell morphology marker, and pUC19 plasmid as a ‘dummy’ DNA plasmid to bring the total amount of DNA to 1500 ng (to avoid variation in DNA-calcium phosphate co-precipitate formation) were used. The cells were washed with acidic MEM buffer (containing 15 mM HEPES with final pH 6.7-6.8 adjusted with acetic acid (Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.) after 45-60 minutes of calcium phosphate precipitate incubation to remove residual precipitates. The neurons were then incubated for another 4-5 days before live cell imaging at 8-9 DIV.

Fluorescence Microscopy of HeLa Cells and Primary Neurons

HeLa cells were imaged 48 hours after transfection. For 10-15 minutes at 37° C. right before imaging, 10 μL of NucBlue Live ReadyProbes Reagent (Invitrogen, Waltham, Mass.) was added to the media to stain the cell nucleus after which the media was replaced with Fluorobrite DMEM supplemented with 15 mM HEPES. Live cell imaging of HeLa cells was performed on an inverted epi-fluorescence wide-field Nikon Eclipse Ti microscope (Nikon, Melville, N.Y.) with a 40×1.15 NA water immersion objective (Nikon MRD77410), a SPECTRA X light engine (LumenCor, Beaverton, Oreg.), and a Zyla 5.5 camera (Andor Technology, South Windsor, Conn.) controlled by NIS-Elements AR software. For imaging GFP intensity-based sensors (GCaMP6f and cAMPr), a 475/28 nm excitation filter (Semrock, Rochester, N.Y.) and a 527/50 nm emission filter (Semrock, Rochester, N.Y.) were used. For imaging the CFP/YFP FRET-based sensor (ICUE3 and AKAR4), a 438/24 nm donor excitation filter (Semrock, Rochester, N.Y.), a 483/32 nm CFP emission filter (Semrock, Rochester, N.Y.), and a 542/27 nm YFP emission filter (Semrock, Rochester, N.Y.) were used. For imaging miRFP, a 631/28 nm excitation filter (Semrock, Rochester, N.Y.) and a 664 long-pass emission filter (Semrock, Rochester, N.Y.) were used. Under the 40× objective, cells were recorded for 5-15 minutes in the GFP, CFP and/or YFP channels at 10 seconds per frame (0.1 Hz), during which the reagents for extracellular stimulation, 10 mM final concentration of calcium chloride (Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.) or 20 μM final concentration of forskolin (Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.), was added into the Fluorobrite media. After recording, images were taken at 40× and 10× in the GFP, CFP, YFP, miRFP, and/or NucBlue channels, and then a tiled image in the NucBlue channel at 4× covering the entire glass coverslip was taken to facilitate registration with the images from downstream immunostaining or RNA FISH. HeLa cells were fixed for 10 minutes in TissuePrep buffered 10% formalin (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, Pa.), followed by washing with 1× phosphate buffered saline (PBS) three times, 5 minutes each. If the cells were for downstream immunostaining, cells were stored in 1×PBS at 4° C. If the cells were for downstream RNA FISH, cells were stored in 70% ethanol at 4° C.

Live neuron imaging was performed on a spinning disk confocal microscope (a Yokogawa CSU-W1 Confocal Scanner Unit (Yokogawa, Sugar Land, Tex.) on a Nikon Eclipse Ti microscope (Nikon, Melville, N.Y.) equipped with a 40×1.15 NA water immersion objective (Nikon MRD77410) and a Zyla PLUS 4.2 Megapixel camera (Andor Technology, South Windsor, Conn.) controlled by NIS-Elements AR software. The filter set for GFP was used for imaging GFP intensity-based sensors. For primary neuron cultures, 4-5 days after transfection, cells were recorded for 1-3 minutes in the GFP channel at 50 ms per frame (20 Hz), during which 5 μM final concentration of forskolin was added into the media. After recording, z stacks were taken at 40× in GFP and miRFP channels, and then a tiled image in GFP channel at 4× covering the entire glass coverslip was taken for registration of live images with the images from downstream immunostaining. Neurons were then fixed for 10 minutes in TissuePrep buffered 10% formalin, followed by washing with 100 mM glycine (Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.) in 1×PBS for 10 minutes, and then washing with 1×PBS three times, 5 minutes each. Cells were stored in 1×PBS at 4° C.

Immunostaining

All solutions described herein were made in 1×PBS unless otherwise specified, and incubations carried out at room temperature unless otherwise specified. Because it was observed that the miRFP fluorescence was not preserved after fixation, fluorescent antibodies that had spectral overlap with miRFP for immunostaining were used. Cells were permeabilized with 0.1% Triton X-100 for 15 minutes and then blocked with 5% normal donkey (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.), horse (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.), or bovine (Abcam, Cambridge, Mass.) serum for 15 minutes. Cells were incubated with primary antibodies in blocking buffer at 1:400 for 1 hour, and then washed in PBS three times for 5 minutes each. Cells were incubated with fluorescently-labeled secondary antibodies in blocking buffer at 1:400 for 2 hours for HeLa cells and 1 hour for cultured neurons, then washed in PBS three times. Nuclei were stained with DAPI at 1 μg/ml for 1-5 minutes followed by 1×PBS wash. Imaging was performed on the same spinning disk confocal microscope as in the live neuron imaging experiments. Antibodies used in certain of the experiments included: Xpress Monoclonal Antibody, Mouse, Invitrogen, Thermofisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.; Anti-V5 Tag Antibody, Chicken, Abcam, Cambridge, Mass.; Anti-HA Tag Antibody, Rabbit, Abcam, Cambridge, Mass.; Goat anti-Mouse IgG1 Cross-Adsorbed Secondary Antibody, Alexa Fluor 546, Invitrogen, Thermofisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.; Goat anti-Mouse IgG (H+L) Highly Cross-Adsorbed Secondary Antibody, Alexa Fluor 594, Invitrogen, Thermofisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.; Goat anti-Chicken IgY (H+L) Secondary Antibody, Alexa Fluor 647, Invitrogen, Thermofisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.; Goat anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L) Secondary Antibody, Alexa Fluor 647, Invitrogen, Thermofisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.; and Donkey Anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L), Highly Cross-Adsorbed, CF543, Biotium, Fremont, Calif.

Multiplexed Immunostaining

Acryloyl-X (6-((acryloyl)amino)hexanoic acid, succinimidyl ester (AcX) (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.) powder was dissolved in anhydrous DMSO (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.) at a concentration of 10 mg/ml, and stored in a desiccated environment at −20° C. Cell cultures on a round coverslip were then incubated in 300-500 μl of AcX at a concentration of 0.1 mg/ml in 1×PBS with 0.5% Triton-X for 30 minutes at 4° C. and then for 1.5 hours at 37° C. Then, cells were washed with 1×PBS three times for 5 minutes each.

A monomer solution composed of 2 M NaCl (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo.), 8.625% (w/v) sodium acrylate (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo.), 2.5% (w/v) acrylamide (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo.), and 0.10% (w/v) N,N′-methylenebisacrylamide (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo.) was then prepared in 1×PBS and aliquotted and stored it at −20° C. Next, a gelling solution composed of monomer solution and the chemicals 4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-1-oxyl (4HT) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo.) was prepared as an inhibitor, and tetramethylethylenediamine (TEMED) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo.) as an accelerator, and ammonium persulfate (APS) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo.) was used as an initiator. 4HT, TEMED, and finally APS were then sequentially added to the monomer solution to prepare the gelling solution (final concentration, 0.01% (w/w) for 4HT, and 0.2% (w/w) for both APS and TEMED) Then, each coverslip containing a neuronal cell culture sample was placed on a glass slide with the cells facing up, and constructed a gel chamber by putting three No. 1.5 coverslips on top of each other unto the glass slide to function as spacers on either end of the neuronal coverslip to avoid compression. The sample was then covered with gelling solution and a coverslip placed over the sample and across the two spacers to ensure the sample was covered with gelling solution and no air bubbles were formed on the sample. Samples were first incubated at 4° C. for 30 minutes in a humidified atmosphere to prevent premature gelation and enable diffusion of solution into tissues, and subsequently incubated at 37° C. for 2.5 hours in a humidified atmosphere to complete gelation.

Afterward, the top coverslip was removed from the samples, and only the sample gel and original coverslip were removed and placed in a 50 ml large conical tube containing 5 ml of denaturation buffer, consisting of 20% (w/v) sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 100 mM f3-mercaptoethanol, 25 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and 0.5% Triton-X in Tris 50 mM at pH 8. Samples were incubated in denaturation buffer for 30 minutes at 37° C. followed by 1 hour in an autoclave at 121° C. Samples were then cooled to RT for 30 minutes. At this stage, gels completely fell off the original coverslip during denaturation or immediately afterwards following gentle shaking and washing with 1×PBS 5 times for 3 min each at RT. The hydrogel embedded samples attained a final state of ˜2.3× linear expansion given the use of an expandable hydrogel.

Next, samples underwent blocking by incubating for 30 minutes at 37° C. in MAXBlock Blocking medium (Active Motif, Carlsbad, Calif.), followed by three washes for 5 minutes each at RT in MAXWash Washing medium (Active Motif, Carlsbad, Calif.). Next, samples were immunostained by diluting primary antibodies in MAXStain Staining medium (Active Motif, Carlsbad, Calif.) and incubating for 1.5 hours at 37° C. or overnight at 4° C. This was followed by three washes for 5 minutes each at RT in MAXWash Washing medium. Then, samples were incubated with secondary antibodies for 1.5 hours at 37° C. or overnight at 4° C. Samples where then washed three times for 5 minutes each at RT in MAXWash Washing medium and stored in 1×PBS.

Antibodies used in certain of the experiments included: Xpress Monoclonal Antibody, Mouse, Invitrogen, Thermofisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.; Anti-VS Tag Antibody, Chicken, Abcam, Cambridge, Mass.; Anti-HA Tag Antibody, Rabbit, Abcam, Cambridge, Mass.; Goat anti-Mouse IgG1 Cross-Adsorbed Secondary Antibody, Alexa Fluor 546, Invitrogen, Thermofisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.; Goat anti-Mouse IgG (H+L) Highly Cross-Adsorbed Secondary Antibody, Alexa Fluor 594, Invitrogen, Thermofisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.; Goat anti-Chicken IgY (H+L) Secondary Antibody, Alexa Fluor 647, Invitrogen, Thermofisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.; Goat anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L) Secondary Antibody, Alexa Fluor 647, Invitrogen, Thermofisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass.; and Donkey Anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L), Highly Cross-Adsorbed, CF543, Biotium, Fremont, Calif.

For spectral clearance to enable antibody stripping, samples were placed in a water tight container with denaturation buffer and incubated for 2 hours at 70° C. with shaking at 200 rpm. Then, excess denaturation buffer was removed, and samples were washed with 1×PBS at RT 5 times for 3 minutes. Samples then underwent immunostaining steps as noted in the previous paragraph for the subsequent rounds of staining.

RNA Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (RNA FISH)

Quasar 570 conjugated fluorescent oligonucleotides were purchased from LGC Biosearch Technologies (Biosearch Technologies, Petaluma, Calif.) as fluorescent RNA FISH probes including: MBS probe, gacatgggtgatcctcatgt (SEQ ID NO: 95); MBS/PBS Linker 1 probe, atctaatgaacccgggaata (SEQ ID NO: 96); MBS/PBS Linker 2 probe, ttctaggcaattaggtacct (SEQ ID NO: 97); PBS 1 probe, agcgacgccatatcgtctgc (SEQ ID NO: 98); and PBS 2 probe, agcgagcccatatgctctgc (SEQ ID NO: 99).

Cells were washed twice for 5 minutes each with wash buffer A (10% formamide in 2×SSC). Afterward, fluorescent RNA FISH probes were added into the hybridization buffer [10% formamide (Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.) and 10% dextran sulfate (Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.) in 2×SSC] to a total probe concentration of 50 nM. Cells were incubated in the FISH probe containing hybridization buffer for 16 hours at 37° C. in a humidity controlled incubator. The cells were then washed with wash buffer A twice at 37° C., each for 30 minutes, before nuclear staining with DAPI at 1 μg/ml for 1-5 minutes followed by a 1×PBS wash. The cells were then transferred to 24-well glass plates with 1×PBS for imaging. Imaging was performed on the same wide-field Nikon Eclipse Ti microscope as the live HeLa imaging experiments.

Quantification and Statistical Analysis
Image Analysis

For each sample, the images and movies taken from live cell imaging and the images taken after immunostaining or RNA FISH were registered by the tiled images from the NucBlue channel (before fixation) and the DAPI channel (after immunostaining or RNA FISH), in each case taken under a 4× objective.

The analysis of the recorded movies from live cell imaging was performed in ImageJ (ImageJ, National Institutes of Health) and Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Wash.). For the analysis of the movies from cells expressing fluorescent sensors assembled by RNA scaffolds or protein scaffolds, the time course of the fluorescence intensity from a punctum in the recorded optical channel was measured as the time course of the average fluorescence intensity within the apparent boundary of the punctum. Then the time course of the net fluorescence, F, from that punctum was obtained by subtracting the background fluorescence intensity measured from a region that had no cells in it from that movie. For the analysis of the movies from cells expressing non-assembled fluorescent sensors as control groups, the time course of the fluorescence intensity from a cell in the recorded optical channel was measured as the time course of the average fluorescence intensity within a random ROI in the cytosol of the cell with the area of that ROI similar to the size of individual puncta in the cells expressing assembled fluorescent sensors that these control groups were compared to, about 1 μm²in HeLa cells, 5-10 μm²in the somata of neurons, and 1 μm²in the neurites of neurons. This was for keeping the noise from the camera contained in the measured fluorescence time courses at a comparable level between cells expressing assembled fluorescent sensors and cells expressing non-assembled fluorescent sensors as control groups. Then the time course of the net fluorescence, F, from that cell was obtained by subtracting the background fluorescent intensity measured from a region that had no cells in it from that movie. For each neurite-localized ROI in neurons, the cumulative distance between the ROI and the soma was calculated by measuring along the neurite.

To calculate the dF/F0 for GCaMP6f or cAMPr expressing HeLa cells or neurons, the baseline fluorescence, F0, was first calculated as the average net fluorescence during the 2-minute period (for movies from live HeLa imaging) or 5-second period (for movies from live neuron imaging) right before adding the extracellular stimulation. dF/F0 was then calculated as dF/F0=(F−F0)/F0. To calculate the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the maximum dF/F0 was divided by the standard deviation of the net fluorescence during the 2-minute period (HeLa) or 5-second period (neuron) right before adding the extracellular stimulation.

To calculate the change of CFP/YFP ratio, d(C/Y)/(C/Y), for ICUE3 expressing HeLa cells, the CFP/YFP ratio, C/Y, was first calculated by dividing the net fluorescence from the CFP channel by the net fluorescence from the YFP channel. Then the baseline of the CFP/YFP ratio, (C/Y)₀, was calculated as the average of the CFP/YFP ratio during the 2-minute period right before adding the extracellular stimulation. d(C/Y)/(C/Y) was then calculated as d(C/Y)/(C/Y)=[C/Y−(C/Y)0]/(C/Y)₀. To calculate the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the maximum d(C/Y)/(C/Y) was divided by the standard deviation of the d(C/Y)/(C/Y) during the 2-minute period (HeLa) right before adding the extracellular stimulation.

For puncta size analysis and the distance to the nearest punctum analysis, StarDist was used to identify and segment the boundaries of puncta followed by geometrical analysis with a custom MATLAB script. For the analysis of puncta spatial separation, a punctum with less than 5% overlap with the puncta of other sensors after immunostaining was counted as a spatially separate punctum. For the analysis of the motion of puncta in recorded and time-lapse movies (1 minute per frame; 1 hour total), puncta were automatically identified and tracked by the TrackMate plugin in ImageJ, then mean squared displacement (MSD) and diffusion coefficient were calculated in MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, Mass.) with the script msdanalyzer [Tarantino, et al., 2014] based on the tracking results from TrackMate.

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analysis was performed using the built-in statistical analysis tools in Prism (GraphPad, San Diego, Calif.), JMP (SAS), or MATLAB. The statistical details of each statistical analysis can be found in the Brief Description of the Drawings section, the Experiments, Results, and Discussion section, and Tables 3-78.

Experiments, Results, and Discussion

RNA Scaffolds can Assemble Fluorescent Sensors into Subcellular Puncta in Mammalian Cells

The MS2 system (Bertrand et al., 1998) and the PP7 system (Lim, Downey and Peabody, 2001), each of which comprises a specific viral RNA sequence and a viral coat protein that binds tightly to that sequence, were tested to determine whether either could be used to assemble fluorescent sensors fused to the protein component of each system onto the RNA component of the same system, in essence using the RNA components as scaffolds to assemble reporters fused to the protein components. Prior work (Bertrand et al., 1998; Wu, Chao and Singer, 2012) showed that fluorescent proteins fused to the RNA binding protein components from each of these systems could be used to fluorescently image the locations of mRNAs engineered to contain the RNA components. In studies described herein, fluorescent proteins previously described were replaced with a fluorescent reporter of calcium, the GFP-based sensor GCaMP6f (Chen et al., 2013), and a fluorescent CFP/YFP FRET reporter of cAMP, ICUE3 (DiPilato and Zhang, 2009) (FIG. 2A), with each fused to an immunoepitope tag (influenza hemagglutinin epitope (HA) (Wilson et al., 1984) and simian virus 5-derived epitope (V5) (Southern et al., 1991), respectively) so that later these spectrally overlapping signals could be post hoc identified by immunostaining as in FIG. 1A, right. Following earlier studies on using the MS2 and PP7 systems to image the location of mRNAs (Wu, Chao and Singer, 2012), a SV40 nuclear localization signal (NLS) was appended to the RNA binding protein component of each system to help scavenge any RNA-unbound protein to the nucleus to reduce background fluorescence not clustered into puncta. The RNA binding proteins were used in tandem dimer form (tdMCP, tandem dimer MS2 coat protein; tdPCP, tandem dimer PP7 coat protein), as before (Wu, Chao and Singer, 2012), to increase the binding efficiency to the RNA targets, with the fluorescent reporters appended to the C-termini of the RNA binding proteins with a flexible linker in between. This resulted in two sensor vectors, MP-GCaMP6f (short for MS2 protein component fused to GCaMP6f) and PP-ICUE3 (short for PP7 protein component fused to ICUE3) (FIG. 2A; Tables 1-2).

For the scaffold vector, a tandem array encoding 48 MS2 binding sites (“48×MBS”) and a tandem array encoding 72 PP7 binding sites (“72×PBS”) were cloned from 24-component arrays of each kind previously developed (Wu, Chao and Singer, 2012) (FIG. 2A). The number of repeats were increased so that the resultant clusters would be as bright as possible, due to earlier work (Golding and Cox, 2004) showing that the number of fluorescent proteins binding to one target RNA would increase with the number of binding sites. RNA length was not successfully increased beyond the 48×MBS and 72×PBS repeats, perhaps because the probability of homologous recombination in bacteria shortening the final gene increases with the number of repeats, a known issue in cloning repetitive sequences (Wu et al., 2015). These repeated RNA components were inserted into the 3′ untranslated region (UTR) of a mammalian expression vector as previously described (Wu, Chao and Singer, 2012) and appended to the gene encoding miRFP, a near-infrared fluorescent protein (Piatkevich et al., 2018), to serve as a marker of cell transfection and cell morphology. The 3′ untranslated region of mouse beta actin mRNA (Actb UTR) was also added to help with cytoplasmic localization of the final RNA transcript (Buxbaum, Haimovich and Singer, 2015; Wu et al., 2016). These cloning efforts resulted in two scaffold vectors, MR-SF (short for MS2 RNA component scaffold) and PR-SF (short for PP7 RNA component scaffold) (FIG. 2A; Tables 1-2).

Transfecting the MS2-based sensor vector with its cognate scaffold vector into HeLa cells resulted in GCaMP6f puncta formation, but the MS2-based sensor vector was unable to form GCaMP6f puncta on the orthogonal PP7 scaffold vector, or when no scaffold vector was provided (FIG. 2B). This finding was reliable across cells, with many dozens of puncta visible when the correct pair was provided, but with few or zero puncta visible when the correct pair was not present (FIG. 2C). Similar results were observed when the PP7-based sensor vector, containing ICUE3, was provided (FIG. 2D-E). A quantitative metric was devised to compare how bright the puncta were versus the background, since background fluorescence could in principle contaminate the signals measured from a punctum. The fluorescence ratio between a punctum and the non-puncta-containing cytosol nearby was calculated and termed ‘degree of clustering’ (Dc). Dc was about 20 on average for the MS2-clustered GCaMP6f reporter and 30 on average for the PP7-clustered ICUE3 reporter (Table 2). Table 3 provides statistical analysis for experiments results shown in FIG. 2C and Table 4 provides statistical analysis of experimental results shown in FIG. 2E.

TABLE 3

Statistical analysis for FIG. 2C

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
<0.001

Exact or approximate P
Approximate

value?

P value summary
***

Do the medians vary
Yes

signif. (P < 0.05)?

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
28.95

Data summary

Number of treatments
3

(columns)

Number of values
38

(total)

Number of families
1

Number of
3

comparisons per

family

Alpha
0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

MP-GCaMP6f No SF
−22.31
Yes
***
<001

vector vs. MP-

GCaMP6f MR-SF

MP-GCaMP6f No SF
−6.298
No
ns
.619

vector vs. MP-

GCaMP6fPR-SF

MP-GCaMP6f MR-SF
16.01
Yes
***
<001

vs. MP-GCaMP6f PR-

SF

Mean
Mean
Mean rank

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
diff.
n1
n2

MP-GCaMP6f No SF
7.111
29.42
−22.31
9
18

vector vs. MP-

GCaMP6f MR-SF

MP-GCaMP6f No SF
7.111
13.41
−6.298
9
11

vector vs. MP-

GCaMP6fPR-SF

MP-GCaMP6f MR-SF
29.42
13.41
16.01
18
11

vs. MP-GCaMP6f PR-

SF

TABLE 4

Statistical analysis for FIG. 2E

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
<0.001

Exact or approximate
Approximate

P value?

P value summary
***

Do the medians vary
Yes

signif. (P < 0.05)?

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis
69.95

statistic

Data summary

Number of treatments
3

(columns)

Number of values
101

(total)

Number of families
1

Number of
3

comparisons per

family

Alpha
0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

PP-ICUE3 No SF
−3.711
No
Ns
>0.999

vector vs. PP-ICUE3

MR-SF

PP-ICUE3 No SF
−52.16
Yes
***
<0.001

vector vs. PP-ICUE3

PR-SF

PP-ICUE3 MR-SF vs.
−48.45
Yes
***
<0.001

PP-ICUE3 PR-SF

Mean
Mean
Mean rank

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
diff.
n1
n2

PP-ICUE3 No SF
30.09
33.8
−3.711
28
35

vector vs. PP-ICUE3

MR-SF

PP-ICUE3 No SF
30.09
82.25
−52.16
28
38

vector vs. PP-ICUE3

PR-SF

PP-ICUE3 MR-SF vs.
33.8
82.25
−48.45
35
38

PP-ICUE3 PR-SF

As an additional confirmation that the fluorescent puncta were indeed scaffolded by the RNAs, RNA FISH was performed against the MS2 and PP7 RNA sequences, on HeLa cells transfected as described above. Almost all the sensor puncta also bore appropriate RNA FISH puncta (FIG. 2F-G). To explore the generality of the finding that it was possible to use RNA scaffolds to assemble sensors into clusters, a third example was created as a proof-of-concept using the LambdaN22 RNA/RNA-binding-protein pair system (FIG. 3A; (Franklin, 1985; Martin et al., 2013)). This scaffold could also cluster GCaMP6f as well as a fluorescent CFP/YFP FRET reporter of protein kinase A, AKAR4, into functional puncta (D_C˜5-7.5) in HeLa cells [FIG. 3B; (Depry, Allen and Zhang, 2011)]. Table 5 provides statistical analysis of experimental results shown in FIG. 2G.

TABLE 5

Statistical analysis for FIG. 2G

Column B
PP-ICUE3

PR-SF

vs.
vs.

Column A
MP-GCaMP6f

MR-SF

Wilcoxon rank sum test

P value
.153

Exact or approximate P value?
Exact

P value summary
ns

Significantly different (P < 0.05)?
No

One- or two-tailed P value?
Two-tailed

Sum of ranks in column A, B
322, 498

Mann-Whitney U
151

Difference between medians

Median of column A
98.03,

n = 18

Median of column B
100,

n = 22

Difference: Actual
1.966

Difference: Hodges-Lehmann
0

Puncta of Fluorescent Sensors Assembled by RNA Scaffolds are Functional in Mammalian Cells

The puncta assembled by RNA scaffolding of fluorescent reporters were tested to determine whether they were functional. MS2-scaffolded GCaMP6f and PP7-scaffolded ICUE3 were expressed in HeLa cells and the resultant signals elicited by extracellular stimuli (10 mM Ca²⁺ and 20 μM forskolin, respectively, as previously used (Williams et al., 2001; Miedlich, Gama and Breitwieser, 2002; Vay et al., 2007; Dipilato and Zhang, 2009)) were compared to those reported by the unscaffolded versions of the corresponding sensors. Both unscaffolded (FIG. 4A, 4D, left) and scaffolded (FIG. 4A, 4D, right) forms of each reporter exhibited quite heterogeneous responses to stimulation, including step-like, spike-like, and oscillatory waveforms, highlighting the complexity of such signals and raising the question of how a simple stimulus might result in such heterogeneous and complex outcomes. The peak changes in fluorescence, however, as well as the signal-to-noise ratios (with noise defined as the standard deviation of the baseline pre-stimulus throughout this paper), were indistinguishable between the conventional and scaffolded forms of the reporters (FIG. 4B-C, GCaMP6f; FIG. 4E-F, ICUE3). Thus the performance of the scaffolded forms of these reporters is comparable to those of the original, unscaffolded sensors. Table 6 provides Statistical analysis for experimental results shown in FIG. 4B, FIG. 4C, FIG. 4E, FIG. 4F, and FIG. 4H.

TABLE 6

Statistical analyses for FIG. 4B, FIG. 4C, FIG. 4E, FIG. 4F, and FIG. 4H.

FIG. 4B
FIG. 4C
FIG. 4E
FIG. 4F
FIG. 4H

Column B
MP-GCaMP6f
MP-GCaMP6f
PP-ICUE3
PP-ICUE3
PP-ICUE3

MR-SF
MR-SF
PR-SF
PR-SF
PR-SF

vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.

Column A
GCaMP6f
GCaMP6f
ICUE3
ICUE3
MP-GCaMP6f

MR-SF

Wilcoxon rank

sum test

P value
0.8222
0.057
0.128
0.347
0.053

Exact or
Exact
Exact
Exact
Exact
Approximate

approximate P

value?

P value
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns

summary

Significantly
No
No
No
No
No

different

(P < 0.05)?

One- or two-
Two-tailed
Two-tailed
Two-tailed
Two-tailed
Two-tailed

tailed P value?

Sum of ranks in
1823, 1663
2057, 1429
623, 238
602, 259
164012, 328517

column A, B

Mann-Whitney
833
649
133
154
98336

U

Difference

between

medians

Median of
85.87,
23.04,
35.83,
10.05,
0.1742,

column A
n = 44
n = 44
n = 27
n = 27
n = 314

Median of
88.28,
15.95,
21.37,
6.89,
0.1334,

column B
n = 39
n = 39
n = 14
n = 14
n = 678

Difference:
2.406
−7.086
−14.46
−3.162
−0.04087

Actual

Difference:
3.439
−8.268
−11.61
−1.991
−0.01886

Hodges-

Lehmann

Next, the scaffolded reporters were examined to determine whether they were stationary in the cell, or whether they moved over time. In order for the post hoc identification of the sensor via immunostaining (or other highly multiplexed fixed cell imaging methods, such as serial FISH) to usefully explain the live cell imaging (FIG. 1A, right), the sensors must remain in the same place throughout the live imaging session, and then be co-registered to the post hoc immunostaining dataset. Movement of puncta would result in inaccurate attribution of a given sensor identity to a given punctum. It could also corrupt the fluorescence signal changes observed for individual puncta, since motion of a punctum could be incorrectly interpreted as changes in punctum brightness. Puncta of both kinds were tracked in live HeLa cells using a previously published algorithm (Tinevez et al., 2017), and characterized the mean squared displacement (MSD) of sensor punctum locations (FIG. 4G) as well as the diffusion coefficients calculated from the MSD data (FIG. 4H). The deviations (FIG. 4G) were submicron over timescales of 5 minutes, resulting in diffusion coefficients of around 10-4 μm²/s (FIG. 4H), implying for all practical purposes acceptable stability of puncta over timecourses commonly used in physiological imaging of calcium and cAMP dynamics. Of course, for the measurement of other signals that transpire over longer periods of time, validation of puncta stability over longer timescales may be useful (although at some point, changes in cell shape, or even cell division, may make any kind of longitudinal imaging challenging).

The density of puncta was also examined. Puncta should be separated by distances that are greater than the resolution limit of the microscope, or they will not be distinguishable. However, if they are too far apart, they may undersample any spatial heterogeneity of a biological signaling pathway within the cell that is desired to be measured. If obtaining a single measure from an entire cell is the goal, then this issue may not be a concern. But in cases where subcellular mapping of a biological signal is desired, having puncta spaced closer together than the characteristic length scales of the relevant biology will be helpful. For each punctum within a cell expressing either the MS2-scaffolded GCaMP6f or the PP7-scaffolded ICUE3, the distance to the nearest punctum was calculated (FIG. 4I). Most of the distances fell into the range of 1-2 microns, although a tail of the distribution indicated that some puncta had distances of several microns between nearest-neighbor puncta. Thus the RNA scaffolding of sensors may support cellular imaging, and subcellular imaging where length scales greater than a few microns are acceptable, but phenomena that occur over very short length scales may be missed. Of course, imaging physiological dynamics over very short length scales is in general challenging, and may require entirely new approaches different from classical fluorescent imaging on ordinary diffraction limited microscopes (Tadross, Tsien and Yue, 2013; Mo et al., 2017). Nevertheless, in many cases the ability of spatially multiplexed imaging to sample physiological signals with 1-2 micron resolution will be able to capture the relevant cell biology; see, for example, FIG. 5 where scaffolded versions of GCaMP6f and ICUE3 are able to pick up on signals at different subcellular locations within a cell in a fashion similar to unscaffolded forms of these indicators.

Multiplexed Physiological Imaging of Ca²⁺ and cAMP in Single Cells Via Clustered Reporters of Overlapping Fluorescence Spectrum

The MS2-scaffolded GCaMP6f system and the PP7-scaffolded ICUE3 system, were co-expressed in single cells and assessed, using post hoc antibody staining against the HA and V5 epitopes respectively, to determine whether the orthogonality of clustering that was observed when the clusters were formed separately (FIG. 2) persisted when the clusters were formed together in the same cell. The sensor puncta in the live state that exhibited post hoc anti-HA immunostaining (and thus were GCaMP6f positive) were quantified, as well as the puncta that exhibited post hoc anti-VS immunostaining (and thus were ICUE3 positive), and were then examined to determine whether the GCaMP6f puncta bore ICUE3 and vice versa (FIG. 6A). Such co-localizations could result from puncta that, by chance, overlapped in space, or they could result from crosstalk between proteins and RNAs across the MS2 and PP7 systems (although previous usages of MS2 and PP7 together for RNA imaging have emphasized that crosstalk is low (Hocine et al., 2013)). Over 90% of the GCaMP6f puncta did not exhibit detectable ICUE3, and a similar finding held for the ICUE3 puncta (FIG. 6B). Thus the percentage contamination of signals was quite small; furthermore, eliminating puncta that contain both signals from further analysis could reduce the chance of such contamination affecting downstream conclusions to a very low level. Table 7 provides Statistical analysis for experimental results shown in FIG. 6B.

TABLE 7

Statistical analysis for FIG. 6B

Column B
PP-ICUE3

PR-SF

vs.
vs.

Column A
MP-GCaMP6f

MR-SF

Wilcoxon rank sum test

P value
0.949

Exact or approximate P value?
Exact

P value summary
ns

Significantly different (P < 0.05)?
No

One- or two-tailed P value?
Two-tailed

Sum of ranks in column A, B
86.5, 84.5

Mann-Whitney U
39.5

Difference between medians

Median of column A
94.29,

n = 9

Median of column B
92.68,

n = 9

Difference: Actual
−1.603

Difference: Hodges-Lehmann
−0.08282

Having established the independence of these puncta, MS2 scaffolded GCaMP6f and PP7 scaffolded ICUE3 were then used to measure Ca²⁺ and cAMP simultaneously in the same cells, under 10 mM Ca²⁺ challenge. Interestingly, multiple kinds of responses emerged (FIG. 6C), with individual cells demonstrating great heterogeneity in their Ca²⁺ responses (e.g., cells 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 exhibited sustained responses, whereas cells 3 and 6 exhibited transient responses) as well as in their cAMP responses (e.g., cells 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 exhibited sustained responses, and cells 2 and 9 exhibited transient responses). In particular, the relationship between Ca²⁺ and cAMP could differ from cell to cell: cells that had a sustained calcium response could have a transient cAMP response (cell 2), and cells that had a transient calcium response could have a sustained cAMP response (cell 3). Simply averaging the Ca²⁺ signals from one population of cells, and the cAMP responses from a second population of cells, would miss out on such within-cell comparisons which might (with additional study) reveal interesting ways in which the coupling between one signal and another signal may be modulated by cell state. A plot of the peak Ca²⁺ and cAMP amplitudes reveals the potential for complex relationships between these two variables, which emphasize the importance of measuring them simultaneously in single cells (FIG. 6D)—perhaps the way these two biological signals interact varies greatly from cell to cell because of different cell histories, epigenetic states, transcriptional states, or protein post-translational modification states.

Several cells were exposed to sequential stimuli, first to 20 μM forskolin and then to 10 mM Ca²⁺. Cells again exhibited a variety of relationships between the Ca²⁺ and cAMP responses (FIG. 6E), which would have been lost if the signals had been first averaged across separate populations of cells and then compared in the aggregate. Some cells had Ca²⁺ and cAMP responses that exhibited similar timecourses and dependencies on the two stimuli (cells 1 and 3), whereas others exhibited Ca²⁺ and cAMP responses that were differentially engaged by the two stimuli—specifically, cells 2 and 4 both had reliable Ca²⁺ responses to both stimuli, but the cAMP responses were differentially engaged by the two stimuli. Thus, the ability to record multiple signals in a single cell may reveal correlations in how different signaling pathways respond to external stimuli, correlations that are lost if first averaged across cells before being compared.

Example 2. Protein Scaffold-Based Reporter Clustering

Neurons exhibit complex signaling cascades important for learning, memory, and development, and that are compromised in complex ways in disease states. Primary cultures of rodent hippocampal and cortical neurons have been critical for the study of calcium and cAMP signaling cascades (Sheng, Thompson and Greenberg, 1991; Bito, Deisseroth and Tsien, 1996; Hardingham, Arnold and Bading, 2001; Redmond, Kashani and Ghosh, 2002), and may be an ideal testbed for the deployment of spatially multiplexed indicators, as long as they are distributed closely enough to sample the relevant spatial scales of neurons (e.g., at different points on dendrites). Expression of the RNA scaffolded Ca²⁺ and cAMP indicators that successfully worked in HeLa cells did not result in puncta in neurons (FIG. 7A-C). Instead, the fluorescent sensors and RNA scaffolds accumulated in the soma and in the proximal neurites, perhaps resulting in such a high density of expression that puncta were not detectable over background. One possibility is that the complex morphology of neurons is linked to more complex RNA trafficking machinery, as has been commented on by others (Davis, Banker and Steward, 1987; Lyford et al., 1995; Dictenberg et al., 2008; Holt and Schuman, 2013; Buxbaum, Wu and Singer, 2014), and further RNA engineering would be required. Accordingly, a reporter clustering method was developed based upon autonomous properties of expressed engineered proteins, ideally artificial ones that would be bioorthogonal to endogenous trafficking biases, to avoid confounds from endogenous machinery as much as possible.

Materials and Methods
Fluorescence Microscopy of Primary Neurons

Live neuron imaging was performed on a spinning disk confocal microscope (a Yokogawa CSU-W1 Confocal Scanner Unit on a Nikon Eclipse Ti microscope) equipped with a 40×1.15 NA water immersion objective (Nikon MRD77410) and a Zyla PLUS 4.2 Megapixel camera controlled by NIS-Elements AR software. The filter set for GFP was used for imaging GFP intensity-based reporters (GCaMP6f and cAMPr), and the filter set for GFP and the 405 nm excitation filter was used for imaging 488 nm/405 nm excitation ratiometric reporters (ExRaiAKAR and ExRaiCKAR). The filter set for RFP was used for imaging RFP intensity-based reporters (RAB_EKARev). For electrophysiological characterizations of GCaMP6f and S1-GCaMP6f (FIGS. 8D-G, 9A-Q), neurons were recorded in the GFP emission channel at a single focal plane at 20 milliseconds per frame (50 Hz). In the characterization and spatially multiplexed imaging experiments in FIGS. 9R-V, 10D-10G, 10M-10O, neurons were recorded in the GFP emission channel at a single focal plane at 50 milliseconds per frame (20 Hz). In all other primary neuron imaging experiments, neurons were recorded by volumetric imaging (1.0-1.5 μm per Z step) in the GFP emission channel only (about 5 seconds per volume; each X-Y plane in the volume was captured twice, one under 405 nm excitation and the other under 488 nm excitation; 405 nm excitation is for ExRaiAKAR and ExRaiCKAR) or in the GFP and RFP emission channels (about 30 seconds per volume; each X-Y plane in the volume was captured three times, one under 405 nm excitation and GFP emission, another under 488 nm excitation and GFP emission, the last one under 561 nm excitation and RFP emission; 561 nm excitation is for RAB_EKARev).

In the experiments in FIGS. 8, 9, 10, and 11 where the drug stimulations (forskolin, PMA, DHPG, or CaCl₂) were indicated by black downwards arrows, drugs diluted in the corresponding media (Fluorobrite MEM for HeLa cells and MEM for cultured neurons) were added into the cell culture by pipetting gently dropwise. In the experiments in FIGS. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, and 31 where the drug stimulations (forskolin, PMA, or DHPG) were indicated by black horizontal bars, coverslips of cultured neurons were transferred to a perfusion chamber (Warner Instruments, Holliston, Mass.; RC-41LP plus DH-40iL) and continuously perfused with MEM for 10-15 minutes before imaging started. During the time periods indicated by the black horizontal bars, corresponding drugs diluted in MEM (50 μM for forskolin; 0.1 μg/ml for PMA; 100 μM for DHPG) were perfused into the perfusion chamber instead of the blank MEM.

After recording, z stacks were taken at 40× in the GFP and miRFP channels, and then a tiled image in the GFP channel at 10× covering a 4×4 grid and at 4× covering the entire glass coverslip was taken for registration of live images with the images from downstream immunostaining. Neurons were then fixed for 15 minutes in TissuePrep buffered 10% formalin, followed by washing with 100 mM glycine (Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.) in 1×PBS for 15 minutes, and then washing with 1×PBS three times, 5 minutes each. Cells were stored in 1× PBS at 4° C.

Electrophysiology—Current and Voltage Clamp Recording of Cultured Neurons

Whole cell patch clamp recordings in were made using Axopatch 200B or Multiclamp 700B amplifiers, a Digidata 1440 digitizer, and a PC running pClamp (Molecular Devices, San Jose, Calif.). For in vitro current-clamp recordings, neurons were patched at 14-18 DIV (7-11 days after AAV transduction) to allow for sodium channel maturation. Neurons were bathed in room temperature Tyrode containing 125 mM NaCl, 2 mM KCl, 3 mM CaCl₂, 1 mM MgCl₂, 10 mM HEPES, 30 mM glucose and the synaptic blockers 0.01 mM NBQX and 0.01 mM GABAzine. The Tyrode pH was adjusted to 7.3 with NaOH and the osmolarity was adjusted to 300 mOsm with sucrose. For in vitro voltage-clamp recordings, neurons were patched at 19-21 DIV (17-20 days post-transfection) and were done under similar conditions as current-clamp recordings, except the Tyrode also contained 1 μM tetrodotoxin (TTX, Tocris Bioscience, Bristol, UK). For recordings, borosilicate glass pipettes (Warner Instruments, Holliston, Mass.) with an outer diameter of 1.2 mm and a wall thickness of 0.255 mm were pulled to a resistance of 5-10 MΩ with a P-97 Flaming/Brown micropipette puller (Sutter Instruments, Novato, Calif.) and filled with a solution containing 155 mM K-gluconate, 8 mM NaCl, 0.1 mM CaCl₂, 0.6 mM MgCl₂, 10 mM HEPES, 4 mM Mg-ATP, and 0.4 mM Na-GTP. The pipette solution pH was adjusted to 7.3 with KOH and the osmolarity was adjusted to 298 mOsm with sucrose.

For additional methods, see methods described in Example 1, and additional details provided herein.

Experiments, Results, and Discussion

Protein Scaffolds can Assemble Reporters into Functional Clusters in Neurons

De novo-designed short peptides of coiled-coil forming hetero-dimers (Tripet et al., 1996; Oakley and Kim, 1998; Moll et al., 2001; Shekhawat et al., 2009; Boyle et al., 2012; Gradišar et al., 2013) or homo-oligomers (Grigoryan et al., 2011; Zaccai et al., 2011; Fletcher et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2014; Negron and Keating, 2014; Thomson et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2018) were tested to determine whether they could, when fused to GCaMP6f, help assemble GCaMP6f into puncta. Two to five of these motifs were fused to the N-terminus or C-terminus of GCaMP6f, with glycine and serine rich flexible linkers adapted from a previous study (Boyle et al., 2012; Indelicato et al., 2016) (Tables 1-2). None of these constructs produced puncta (Dc=1), perhaps because they formed small oligomers instead of larger protein assemblies, as had been observed in certain conditions (Boyle et al., 2012).

Next, de novo-designed self-assembling peptides were tested that were not coiled-coil forming proteins, but that had been shown in solution to form large protein assemblies beyond oligomers (such as polyhedrons). These peptides included the 13-01 peptide that forms a 60-subunit 25 nm sized 1.33 MDa protein dodecahedron (Hsia et al., 2016); other supramolecular assembly forming peptides were also tested (Gonen et al., 2015; Garcia-Seisdedos et al., 2017) (Tables 1-2). The 13-01 peptide was able to form identifiable puncta of GCaMP6f in neurons that were modestly brighter than the non-puncta cytosol (Dc=2); none of the other designs produced any puncta in neurons (Dc=1). Thus, 13-01 served as a prototype for a general strategy for creating such puncta, to which improvements could be made, including improved brightness, and as a baseline for identifying other peptides with similar properties.

Dual-Self-Assembling Peptides

It was hypothesized that self-assembling peptides could generate meaningful puncta if they were scalably assembled beyond the sizes achievable with a single self-assembling peptide: for example, if a fluorescent reporter was fused to two self-assembling peptides, it could form more scalable assemblies because each kind of reporter could enable new bridges to form (FIG. 1D). Experiments were therefore performed in which GCaMP6f was fused to a pair of self-assembling peptides—one a coiled-coil forming protein, and one a polyhedron-forming protein—to determine wheth er the combination of two peptides could enable the formation of more bright macroscopic clusters. One possible outcome was that such a dual peptide strategy could, for example, enable small puncta to be formed via the polyhedron-assembling motifs (which, as noted, had some degree of clustering, albeit very dim), which in turn could link up into larger puncta via the coiled-coil forming motifs.

A first goal of studies carried out was to increase the brightness of the puncta. To increase the number of GCaMP6f molecules per punctum, a short coiled-coil-forming homo-tetramer HexCoil-Ala [(Grigoryan et al., 2011); 30 amino acids long, abbreviated Coi11 in this study; four Coi11 peptides will assemble into a 12.8 kDa coiled-coil assembly] was added to the I3-01-fused GCaMP6f with the goal of allowing the I3-01-assembled puncta further assemble into even larger structures. The resulting dual self-assembling motif was named S1, and the reporter construct (including the immunoepitope Xpress for later antibody staining identification) was named S1-GCaMP6f (FIG. 17A; Tables 1-2).

S1-GCaMP6f had an extremely high Dc of >10³in the soma and >10⁴in the neurites (compare FIG. 17B with FIG. 17C; quantitation in FIG. 21A-B, Tables 28-29), indicating promise as a protein scaffold based SiRI construct for spatially multiplexed imaging. As seen in FIG. 17D-I and FIGS. 8D-H (Tables 9-13) Ca²⁺ transients reported by S1-GCaMP6f compared at the soma, the proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma; distances to soma were measured along the neurites throughout this study), and the distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma) appeared similar to those of conventional GCaMP6f in response to either a single action potential (1 AP) at t=5 seconds (s) triggered by current injection via whole-cell patch clamp at the soma (FIG. 17D-F), when elicited by 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=10 s (FIG. 17G-I), or in response to multiple APs (FIG. 9A-B). Ca²⁺ transients reported by S1-GCaMP6f also showed similar transient amplitudes (dF/F0, measured as peak fluorescence change in the GFP channel) for both single AP (FIG. 17E, FIG. 17H, Tables 8 and 9), multiple APs (FIG. 9C, Table 14), as well as similar signal-to-noise ratios in the GFP channel (FIG. 17F, FIG. 17I, Tables 8 and 10) in neurons as those of conventional GCaMP6f. The rise time and decay time of reported Ca²⁺ transients at the soma elicited by single APs were similar between GCaMP6f and S1-GCaMP6f as well (FIG. 8G, Table 13). The amplitude, rise time, and decay time of S1-GCaMP6f-reported somatic Ca²⁺ transients elicited by single APs had no correlation with the number of puncta, the brightness of puncta, or the size of puncta (FIG. 9E-P, Tables 15-19), with one reported Ca²⁺ peak per single AP (FIG. 9Q, Table 20). When elicited by extracellular forskolin stimulation, which drives cAMP production and induces extracellular Ca²⁺ influx and/or intracellular Ca^{2+ release in multiple types of cultured neurons (Zanassi et al.,}2001; Gorbunova and Spitzer, 2002; Otsuguro et al., 2005), Ca²⁺ signals reported by S1-GCaMP6f appeared similar to those reported by GCaMP6f in amplitude, signal-to-noise ratio, and number of peaks observed (FIG. 9R-V, Tables 21-23). Thus, Si clustering of GCaMP6f into puncta did not alter GCaMP6f functionality. S1-GCaMP6f puncta were ˜0.5-2 μm in diameter (FIG. 8H, left; consistent across gene dosages, FIG. 9W, Table 24), with the median distance to the nearest punctum of ˜5 μm (FIG. 2H, middle; consistent across gene dosages, FIG. 9X, Table 25), and remained almost completely spatially stationary over one hour periods, with mean squared displacement of 1.8 μm²per hour, or an estimated diffusion coefficient of 0.006 μm²per minute (FIG. 8H, right) in live neurons. S1-GCaMP6f puncta brightness (FIG. 9Y, Table 26), but not puncta count (FIG. 9Z, Table 27), increased with gene dosage. S1-GCaMP6f expression did not alter the basal or active electrophysiological properties of neurons (FIG. 18) and S1-GCaMP6f puncta did not co-localize with subcellular organelles in neurons, including mitochondria, endosomes, lysosomes, Golgi apparatus, and endoplasmic reticulum (FIG. 19). Tables 8-10 show measurements and statistical analyses for FIGS. 17E-F and H-I; Tables 11-13 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 8E-G; Tables 14-27 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 9C-D, M-O, P-U, and W-Z; and Tables 28-29 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 21A-B.

TABLE 8

Neuronal measurements used in FIG. 17E-F and FIG. 17H-I

Peak fluorescence change, GFP channel (dF/F0)

Single action

Proximal
Distal
Total

Corresponding

potential (1 AP)
Somata
neurites
neurites
neurons
Cultures
FIG.

GCaMP6f
11
22
22
11
3
FIG. 17E

S1-GCaMP6f
11
22
22
11
3
FIG. 17E

5 μM forskolin

GCaMP6f
6
12
12
6
4
FIG. 17H

S1-GCaMP6f
9
18
18
9
6
FIG. 17H

Signal-to-noise-ratio

Proximal
Distal
Total

Corresponding

1 AP
Somata
neurites
neurites
neurons
Cultures
FIG.

GCaMP6f
11
22
22
11
3
FIG. 17F

S1-GCaMP6f
11
22
22
11
3
FIG. 17F

Forskolin

GCaMP6f
6
12
12
6
4
FIG. 17I

S1-GCaMP6f
9
18
18
9
6
FIG. 17I

TABLE 9

Statistical analysis for FIG. 17H

Two-way

ANOVA
Ordinary

Alpha
0.05

% of

total

Source of
varia-
P
P value
Significant

Variation
tion
value
summary
?

Interaction
4.434
0.273
ns
No

Locations
1.773
0.59
ns
No

Molecules
1.847
0.297
ns
No

SS

ANOVA
(Type

F (DFn,

table
III)
DF
MS
DFd)
P value

Interaction
354628
2
177314
F (2, 54) =
P = 0.273

1.33

Locations
141828
2
70914
F (2, 54) =
P = 0.590

0.5321

Molecules
147722
1
147722
F (1, 54) =
P = 0.297

1.108

Residual
7197259
54
133283

Number of
1

families

Number of
3

comparisons

per family

Alpha
0.05

Sidak′s

multiple

95.00

comparisons
Mean
% CI
Significant

Adjusted

test
Diff.
of diff.
?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

Soma
83.54
−435.8
No
ns
0.971

to

602.9

Proximal
−81.96
−449.2
No
ns
0.928

neurite

to

285.3

Distal neurite
−315.4
−682.6
No
ns
0.112

to

51.85

Mean
Mean

Test details
1
2
Mean Diff.
SE of diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

Soma
544.1
460.6
83.54
210.8
6
6
0.3963
54

Proximal
508.1
590.1
−81.96
149
12
12
0.5499
54

neurite

Distal neurite
468.7
784.1
−315.4
149
12
12
2.116
54

TABLE 10

Statistical analysis for FIG. 17I

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
5.618
.139
ns
No

Row Factor
19.88
.002
**
Yes

Column
1.384
.320
ns
No

Factor

ANOVA
SS (Type

table
III)
DF
MS
F (DFn, DFd)
P value

Interaction
143900
2
71950
F (2, 54) =
P = 0.139

2.045

Row Factor
509284
2
254642
F (2, 54) =
P = 0.002

7.237

Column
35443
1
35443
F( 1, 54) =
P = 0.320

Factor

1.007

Residual
1900038
54
35186

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Sidak’s

multiple

95.00%

comparisons
Mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
Diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-

S1-

GCaMP6f

Soma
192
−74.87
No
ns
0.226

to 458.8

Proximal
36.34
−152.4
No
ns
0.952

neurite

to 225

Distal
−74.61
−263.3
No
ns
0.705

neurite

to 114.1

Test details
Mean 1
Mean 2
Mean Diff.
SE of diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-

GCaMP6f

Soma
454
262
192
108.3
6
6
1.773
54

Proximal
158.2
121.8
36.34
76.58
12
12
0.4746
54

neurite

Distal
80.64
155.3
−74.61
76.58
12
12
0.9743
54

neurite

TABLE 11

Statistical analysis for FIG. 8E

Peak fluorescence changes in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal

neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f

in response to single action potental (n = 11 values from soma, 22 values from proximal

neurites, and 22 values from distal neurites from 11 total trials from 6 neurons from 3

cultures for each of GCaMP6f and S1-GCaMP6f; for each trial, the calcium responses

from the soma and two proximal neurites and two distal neurites were analyzed).

Two way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple

comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
0.1647
.912
ns
No

Subcellular
1.958
.337
ns
No

location

Molecule
4.426
.028
*
Yes

SS

F (DFn,

ANOVA table
(Type III)
DF
MS
DFd)
P value

Interaction
8.895
2
4.447
F (2, 104) =
P = .912

0.09254

Subcellular
105.8
2
52.88
F (2, 104) =
P = .337

location

1.100

Molecule
239.0
1
239.0
F (1, 104) =
P = .028

4.974

Residual
4998
104
48.06

Difference

between

column means

Predicted (LS)
4.676

mean of

GCaMP6f

Predicted (LS)
7.784

mean of

S1-GCaMP6f

Difference
−3.108

between

predicted

means

SE of
1.394

difference

95% CI of
−5.871 to

difference
−0.3444

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni’s
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

Soma
−2.465
−9.658 to
No
ns
>.999

4.728

Proximal
−2.962
−8.048 to
No
ns
.479

neurite

2.125

Distal
−3.897
−8.983 to
No
ns
.195

neurite

1.190

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS)
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
mean diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

Soma
4.109
6.574
−2.465
2.956
11
11
0.8340
104.0

Proximal
6.113
9.075
−2.962
2.090
22
22
1.417
104.0

neurite

Distal
3.805
7.702
−3.897
2.090
22
22
1.864
104.0

neurite

TABLE 12

Statistical analysis for FIG. 8F

Signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of

cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f in response to

single action potential (n = 11 values from soma, 22 values from proximal neurites, and 22

values from distal neurites from 11 total trials from 6 neutrons from 3 cultures for each of

GCaMP6f and S1-GCaMP6f; for each trial, the calcium responses from the soma and two

proximal neurites and two distal neurites were analyzed). Two-way analysis of variance

followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
0.2732
.788
ns
No

Subcellular
38.22
<.001
***
Yes

location

Molecule
1.508
.107
ns
No

SS

F (DFn,

ANOVA table
(Type III)
DF
MS
DFd)
P value

Interaction
3.710
2
1.855
F (2, 104) =
P = .788

0.2392

Subcellular
519.0
2
259.5
F (2, 104) =
P < .001

location

33.47

Molecule
20.47
1
20.47
F (1, 104) =
P = .107

2.641

Residual
806.4
104
7.754

Difference

between

column means

Predicted (LS)
3.821

mean of

GCaMP6f

Predicted (LS)
4.731

mean of

S1-GCaMP6f

Difference
−0.9095

between

predicted

means

SE of
0.5597

difference

95% CI of
−2.019 to

difference
0.2004

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni’s
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

Soma
−0.3286
−3.218 to
No
ns
>.999

2.561

Proximal
−1.071
−3.114 to
No
ns
.615

neurite

0.9722

Distal
−1.329
−3.372 to
No
ns
.349

neurite

0.7136

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS)
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
mean diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

Soma
7.527
7.55
−0.3286
1.187
11
11
0.2767
104.0

Proximal
2.839
3.909
−1.071
0.8396
22
22
1.275
104.0

neurite

Distal
1.098
2.427
−1.329
0.8396
22
22
1.583
104.0

neurite

TABLE 13

Statistical analysis for FIG. 8G

Wilcoxon rank sum test of the half rise

time and the half decay time of reported

calcium transients at soma when elicited

by single action potential (n = 11 total

trials from 6 neurons from 3 cultures

for each of GCaMP6f and S1-GCaMP6f).

Half rise time

P value
0.3540

ranksum
140.5

zval
0.9269

Half decay time

P value
0.4301

ranksum
139

zval
0.7891

TABLE 14

Statistical analysis for FIG. 9C

Peak fluorescence changes in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal

neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f

in response to a single (n = 11 values from soma, 22 values from proximal neurites, and

22 values from distal neurites from 11 total trials from 6 neurons from 3 cultures for each

of GCaMP6f and S1-GCaMP6f; for each trial, the calcium responses from the soma and

two proximal neurites and two distal neurites were analyzed) or multiple (5AP, 10AP, or

20AP; n = 5 values from soma, 10 values from proximal neurites, and 10 values from

distal neurites from 5 total trials from 5 neurons from 3 cultures for GCaMP6f;

n = 6 values from soma, 12 values from proximal neurites, and 12 values from distal

neurites from 6 total trials from 6 neurons from 3 cultures for S1-GCaMP6f; for each trial,

the calcium responses from the soma and two proximal neurites and two distal neurites

were analyzed) action potentials. Two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc

Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test.

At the soma:

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
0.4787
.929
ns
No

AP number
47.90
<.001
***
Yes

Molecule
0.9601
.347
ns
No

SS

F (DFn,

ANOVA table
(Type III)
DF
MS
DFd)
P value

Interaction
4908
3
1636
F (3, 47) =
P = .929

0.1500

AP number
491117
3
163706
F (3, 47) =
P < .001

15.01

Molecule
9844
1
9844
F (1, 47) =
P = .347

0.9025

Residual
512648
47
10907

Difference

between

column means

Predicted (LS)
87.79

mean of

GCaMP6f

Predicted (LS)
115.9

mean of

S1-GCaMP6f

Difference
−28.08

between

predicted

means

SE of
29.56

difference

95% CI of
−87.55 to

difference
31.39

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 4

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni’s
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95.00%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
−2.465
−118.1 to
No
ns
>.999

113.2

5 APs
−23.33
−187.6 to
No
ns
>.999

140.9

10 APs
−51.26
−215.5 to
No
ns
>.999

113.0

20 APs
−35.28
−199.5 to
No
ns
>.999

129.0

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS)
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
mean diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
4.109
6.574
−2.465
44.53
11
11
0.05536
47.00

5 APs
26.73
50.06
−23.33
63.24
5
6
0.3688
47.00

10 APs
80.85
132.1
−51.26
63.24
5
6
0.8105
47.00

20 APs
239.5
274.8
−35.28
63.24
5
6
0.5579
47.00

At the proximal neurites:

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
0.4886
.829
ns
No

AP number
43.64
<.001
***
Yes

Molecule
0.05651
.750
ns
No

SS

F (DFn,

ANOVA table
(Type III)
DF
MS
DFd)
P value

Interaction
30931
3
10310
F (3, 102) =
P = .829

0.2952

AP number
2763045
3
921015
F (3, 102) =
P < .001

26.37

Molecule
3578
1
3578
F (1, 102) =
P = .750

0.1024

Residual
3562545
102
34927

Difference

between

column means

Predicted (LS)
184.1

mean of

GCaMP6f

Predicted (LS)
172.2

mean of

S1-GCaMP6f

Difference
11.97

between

predicted

means

SE of
37.40

difference

95% CI of
−62.22 to

difference
86.16

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 4

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni’s
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95.00%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
−2.962
−146.2 to
No
ns
>.999

140.3

5 APs
−16.26
−219.7 to
No
ns
>.999

187.2

10 APs
−8.503
−212.0 to
No
ns
>.999

195.0

20 APs
75.61
−127.9 to
No
ns
>.999

279.1

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS)
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
mean diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
6.113
9.075
−2.962
56.35
22
22
0.05256
102.0

5 APs
64.54
80.81
−16.26
80.02
10
12
0.2033
102.0

10 APs
200.6
209.2
−8.503
80.02
10
12
0.1063
102.0

20 APs
465.2
389.6
75.61
80.02
10
12
0.9449
102.0

At the distal neurites:

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
0.4329
.847
ns
No

AP number
44.72
<.001
***
Yes

Molecule
0.3078
.449
ns
No

SS

F (DFn,

ANOVA table
(Type III)
DF
MS
DFd)
P value

Interaction
20545
3
6848
F (3, 102) =
P = .847

0.2704

AP number
2122396
3
707465
F (3, 102) =
P < .001

27.94

Molecule
14609
1
14609
F (1, 102) =
P = .449

0.5769

Residual
2582979
102
25323

Difference

between

column means

Predicted (LS)
133.4

mean of

GCaMP6f

Predicted (LS)
157.6

mean of

S1-GCaMP6f

Difference
−24.19

between

predicted

means

SE of
31.85

difference

95% CI of
−87.36 to

difference
38.98

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 4

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni’s
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95.00%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
−3.982
−126.0 to
No
ns
>.999

118.0

5 APs
−34.16
−207.4 to
No
ns
>.999

139.1

10 APs
−67.22
−240.5 to
No
ns
>.999

106.0

20 APs
8.607
−164.6 to
No
ns
>.999

181.9

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS)
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
mean diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
3.720
7.702
−3.982
47.98
22
22
0.08299
102.0

5 APs
30.28
64.44
−34.16
68.14
10
12
0.5014
102.0

10 APs
121.4
188.6
−67.22
68.14
10
12
0.9866
102.0

20 APs
378.2
369.6
8.607
68.14
10
12
0.1263
102.0

TABLE 15

Statistical analysis for FIG. 9D

Signal-to-noise in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured

mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f in response to a single (n = 11

values from soma, 22 values from proximal neurites, and 22 values from distal neurites from 11

total trials from 6 neurons from 3 cultures for each of GCaMP6f and S1-GCaMP6f; for each trial,

the calcium responses from the soma and two proximal neurites and two distal neurites were

analyzed) or multiple (5AP, 10AP, or 20AP; n = 5 values from soma, 10 values from proximal

neurites, and 10 values from distal neurites from 5 total trials from 5 neurons from 3 cultures for

GCaMP6f; n = 6 values from soma, 12 values from proximal neurites, and 12 values from distal

neurites from 6 total trials from 6 neurons from 3 cultures for S1-GCaMP6f; for each trial, the

calcium responses from the soma and two proximal neurites and two distal neurites were

analyzed) action potentials. Two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni

corrected multiple comparisons test.

At the soma:

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
1.708
.593
ns
No

AP number
57.28
<.001
***
Yes

Molecule
0.8561
.332
ns
No

SS

F (DFn,

ANOVA table
(Type III)
DF
MS
DFd)
P value

Interaction
17403
3
5801
F (3, 47) =
P = .593

0.6401

AP number
583612
3
194537
F (3, 47) =
P < .001

21.46

Molecule
8723
1
8723
F (1, 47) =
P = .332

0.9625

Residual
425968
47
9063

Difference

between

column means

Predicted (LS)
121.2

mean of

GCaMP6f

Predicted (LS)
94.78

mean of

S1-GCaMP6f

Difference
26.44

between

predicted

means

SE of
26.95

difference

95% CI of
−27.77 to

difference
80.64

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 4

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni’s
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95.00%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
−0.3286
−105.8 to
No
ns
>.999

105.1

5 APs
1.815
−147.9 to
No
ns
>.999

151.6

10 APs
12.39
−137.3 to
No
ns
>.999

162.1

20 APs
91.86
−57.87 to
No
ns
.471

241.6

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS)
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
mean diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
7.527
7.855
−0.3286
40.59
11
11
0.008094
47.00

5 APs
37.80
35.98
1.815
57.65
5
6
0.03149
47.00

10 APs
111.8
99.40
12.39
57.65
5
6
0.2150
47.00

20 APs
327.8
235.9
91.86
63.24
5
6
0.5579
47.00

At the proximal neurites:

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
0.4543
.676
ns
No

AP number
67.38
<.001
***
Yes

Molecule
0.8342
.096
ns
No

SS

F (DFn,

ANOVA table
(Type III)
DF
MS
DFd)
P value

Interaction
3167
3
1056
F (3, 102) =
P = .676

0.5109

AP number
469804
3
156601
F (3, 102) =
P < .001

75.78

Molecule
5817
1
5817
F (1, 102) =
P = .096

2.815

Residual
210774
102
2066

Difference

between

column means

Predicted (LS)
61.33

mean of

GCaMP6f

Predicted (LS)
76.60

mean of

S1-GCaMP6f

Difference
−15.26

between

predicted

means

SE of
9.098

difference

95% CI of
−33.31 to

difference
2.782

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 4

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni’s
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95.00%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
−1.071
−35.92 to
No
ns
>.999

33.78

5 APs
−10.08
−59.57 to
No
ns
>.999

39.41

10 APs
−24.15
−73.64 to
No
ns
.870

195.0

20 APs
−25.76
−75.25 to
No
ns
.755

23.74

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS)
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
mean diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
2.839
3.909
−1.071
13.71
22
22
0.07812
102.0

5 APs
18.57
28.65
−10.08
19.46
10
12
0.5179
102.0

10 APs
59.77
83.92
−24.15
19.46
10
12
1.241
102.0

20 APs
164.1
189.9
−25.76
19.46
10
12
1.323
102.0

At the distal neurites:

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
1.741
.290
ns
No

AP number
47.02
<.001
***
Yes

Molecule
3.579
.006
**
Yes

SS

F (DFn,

ANOVA table
(Type III)
DF
MS
DFd)
P value

Interaction
2580
3
860.0
F (3, 102) =
P = .290

1.265

AP number
69669
3
23223
F (3, 102) =
P < .001

34.16

Molecule
5303
1
5303
F (1, 102) =
P = .006

7.800

Residual
69350
102
679.9

Difference

between

column means

Predicted (LS)
20.06

mean of

GCaMP6f

Predicted (LS)
34.63

mean of

S1-GCaMP6f

Difference
−14.57

between

predicted

means

SE of
5.219

difference

95% CI of
−24.93 to

difference
4.223

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 4

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni’s
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95.00%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
−1.525
−21.52 to
No
ns
>.999

18.47

5 APs
−10.45
−38.83 to
No
ns
>.999

17.94

10 APs
−23.28
−51.67 to
No
ns
.158

5.111

20 APs
−23.05
−51.44 to
No
ns
.166

5.339

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS)
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
mean diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

1 AP
0.9025
2.427
−1.525
7.862
22
22
0.1939
102.0

5 APs
4.582
15.03
−10.45
11.16
10
12
0.9356
102.0

10 APs
17.86
41.14
−23.28
11.16
10
12
2.085
102.0

20 APs
56.89
79.94
−23.05
11.16
10
12
2.065
102.0

TABLE 16

Statistical analysis for FIG. 9M

Half rise time versus somatic punctum

size for the recorded somatic calcium

transients in response to a single

action potential in S1-GCaMP6f

expressing neurons (n = 6 neurons

from 3 cultures). Kruskal-Wallis

analysis of variance followed by

post-hoc test via Dunn's test

with ‘<1 μm’ as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.9835

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
0.03328

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

<1 μm vs. 1-2 μm
0.3681
No
ns
>0.9999

<1 μm vs. >2 μm
−0.2778
No
ns
>0.9999

TABLE 17

Statistical analysis for FIG. 9N

Half decay time versus somatic punctum

size for the recorded somatic calcium

transient: in response to a single

action potential in S1-GCaMP6f

expressing neurons (n = 6 neurons

from 3 cultures). Kruskal-Wallis

analysis of variance followed by

post-hoc test via Dunn's test

with ‘<1 μm’ as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.5999

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
1.022

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

<1 μm vs. 1-2 μm
2.771
No
ns
0.8003

<1 μm vs. >2 μm
−0.5000
No
ns
>0.9999

TABLE 18

Statistical analysis for FIG. 9O

Peak fluorescence changes versus somatic

punctum size for the recorded somatic

calcium transients in response to a

single action potential in S1-GCaMP6f

expressing neurons (n = 6 neurons

from 3 cultures). Kruskal-Wallis

analysis of variance followed by

post-hoc test via Dunn's test

with ‘<1 μm’ as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.5082

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
1.354

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

<1 μm vs. 1-2 μm
2.389
No
ns
0.9371

<1 μm vs. >2 μm
4.056
No
ns
0.5131

TABLE 19

Statistical analysis for FIG. 9P

Punctum brightness versus somatic

punctum size for the recorded

somatic calcium transients in

response to a single action potential

in S1-GCaMP6f expressing neurons

(n = 6 neurons from 3 cultures).

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance

followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's

test with ‘<1 μm’ as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.2427

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
2.832

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

<1 μm vs. 1-2 μm
−4.139
No
ns
0.4183

<1 μm vs. >2 μm
−5.556
No
ns
0.2403

TABLE 20

Statistical analysis for FIG. 9Q

Wilcoxon rank sum test for the number

of somatic calcium peaks in response

to a single action potential for GCaMP6f

and S1-GCaMP6f expressing neurons

(n = 11 total trials from 6 neurons

from 3 cultures for each of

GCaMP6f and S1-GCaMP6f).

P value
1

ranksum
60.50

TABLE 21

Statistical analysis for FIG. 9S

Peak fluorescence changes in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of

cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f under 5 μM forskolin

stimulation (n = 6 somata, 12 proximal neurites, and 12 distal neurites from 6 neurons from 4 cultures

for GCaMP6f; n = 9 somata, 18 proximal neurites, and 18 distal neurites from 9 neurons from 9 cultures

for S1-GCaMP6f). Two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple

comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
2.126
.469
ns
No

Subcellular location
0.6935
.780
ns
No

Molecule
0.1744
.724
ns
No

SS

F (DFn,

ANOVA table
(Type III)
DF
MS
DFd)
P value

Interaction
238598
2
119299
F (2, 69) =
P = .469

0.7649

Subcellular location
77840
2
38920
F (2, 69) =
P = .780

0.2495

Molecule
19569
1
19569
F (1, 69) =
P = .724

0.1255

Residual
10761802
69
155968

Difference between

column means

Predicted (LS) mean
495.0

of GCaMP6f

Predicted (LS) mean
529.7

of S1-GCaMP6f

Difference between
−34.76

predicted means

SE of difference
98.12

95% CI of
−230.5 to

difference
161.0

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni’s
Predicted
95.00%

multiple
(LS) mean
CI of

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-S1-

GCaMP6f

Soma
117.3
−393.4 to
No
ns
>.999

628.0

Proximal neurite
−32.28
−393.4 to
No
ns
>.999

328.9

Distal neurite
−189.3
−550.4 to
No
ns
.608

171.8

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS)
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
mean diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

Soma
522.3
405.0
117.3
208.1
6
9
0.5636
69.00

Proximal neurite
503.6
535.9
−32.28
147.2
12
18
0.2193
69.00

Distal neurite
458.9
648.2
−189.3
147.2
12
18
1.286
69.00

TABLE 22

Statistical analysis for FIG. 9T

Signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured

mouse hippocampal neurons expressing GCaMP6f or S1-GCaMP6f under 5 μM forskolin stimulation

(n = 6 somata, 12 proximal neurites, and 12 distal neurites from 6 neurons from 4 cultures for

GCaMP6f; n = 9 somata, 18 proximal neurites, and 18 distal neurites neurons from 9 neurons

from 9 cultures for S1-GCaMP6f). Two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni

corrected multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
1.643
.518
ns
No

Subcellular location
14.28
.005
**
Yes

Molecule
0.1566
.723
ns
No

SS

F (DFn,

ANOVA table
(Type III)
DF
MS
DFd)
P value

Interaction
40270
2
20135
F (2, 69) =
P = .518

0.6636

Subcellular location
350060
2
175030
F (2, 69) =
P = .005

5.769

Molecule
3839
1
3839
F (1, 69) =
P = .723

0.1265

Residual
2093606
69
30342

Difference between

column means

Predicted (LS) mean
165.3

of GCaMP6f

Predicted (LS) mean
149.9

of S1-GCaMP6f

Difference between
15.39

predicted means

SE of difference
43.28

95% CI of
−70.94 to

difference
101.7

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Sidak’s
Predicted
95.00%

multiple
(LS) mean
CI of

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

GCaMP6f-S1-

GCaMP6f

Soma
93.94
−130.7 to
No
ns
.671

628.0

Proximal neurite
−19.35
−178.2 to
No
ns
.987

139.5

Distal neurite
−28.40
−187.3 to
No
ns
.962

130.5

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS)
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
mean diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

GCaMP6f-

S1-GCaMP6f

Soma
316.0
222.1
93.94
91.81
6
9
1.023
69.00

Proximal neurite
114.4
133.8
−19.35
64.92
12
18
0.2981
69.00

Distal neurite
65.53
93.94
−28.40
64.92
12
18
0.4376
69.00

TABLE 23

Statistical analysis for FIG. 9U

Wilcoxon rank sum test of the number

of somatic calcium spikes 0-30

seconds after forskolin stimulation

(n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures

for GCaMP6f; n = 9 neurons

from 9 cultures for S1-GCaMP6f).

P value
0.7832

ranksum
45

TABLE 24

Statistical analysis for Figure 9W

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the puncta size followed by post-hoc test via

Dunn's test with ‘100 ng’ as control group (n = 792, 1314, 1230, 881, and 283 puncta in 9, 11,

11, 10, and 4 neurons from 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1 culture for 100 ng, 250 ng, 500 ng, 750 ng, and 1000 ng, respectively).

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
<0.0001

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
****

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
Yes

Number of groups
5

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
31.10

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
4500

Number of families
1

Number of comparisons per family
4

Alpha
0.05

Mean

Adjusted P

Dunn's multiple comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
191.2
Yes
**
0.0043
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
194.9
Yes
**
0.0040
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
317.0
Yes
***
<0.0001
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
−10.46
No
ns
>0.9999
E
1000 ng

Mean rank

Test details
Mean rank 1
Mean rank 2
diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
2421
2230
191.2
792
1314
3.272

100 ng vs. 500 ng
2421
2226
194.9
792
1230
3.293

100 ng vs. 750 ng
2421
2104
317.0
792
881
4.983

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
2421
2431
−10.46
792
283
0.1162

TABLE 25

Statistical analysis for Figure 9X

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the distance to the nearest punctum followed by

post-hoc test via Dunn's test with ‘100 ng’ as control group (n = 792, 1314, 1230, 881, and 283

puncta in 9, 11, 11, 10, and 4 neurons from 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1 culture for 100 ng, 250 ng, 500 ng,

750 ng, and 1000 ng, respectively).

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
<0.0001

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
****

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
Yes

Number of groups
5

Kruskal -Wallis statistic
94.72

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
4164

Number of families
1

Number of
4

comparisons per

family

Alpha
0.05

Dunn's multiple

Adjusted P

comparisons test
Mean rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
193.2
Yes
**
0.0024
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
324.7
Yes
***
<0.0001
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
−107.6
No
ns
0.3137
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
−218.4
Yes
*
0.0441
E
1000 ng

Mean rank

Test details
Mean rank 1
Mean rank 2
diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
2191
1998
193.2
727
1224
3.433

100 ng vs. 500 ng
2191
1867
324.7
727
1120
5.672

100 ng vs. 750 ng
2191
2299
−107.6
727
825
1.760

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
2191
2410
−218.4
727
268
2.542

TABLE 26

Statistical analysis for Figure 9Y

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the puncta brightness followed by post-hoc test via

Dunn's test with ‘100 ng’ as control group (n = 792, 1314, 1230, 881, and 283 puncta in 9, 11,

11, 10, and 4 neurons from 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1 culture for 100 ng, 250 ng, 500 ng, 750 ng, and 1000

ng, respectively).

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
<0.0001

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
****

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
Yes

Number of groups
5

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
1370

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
4500

Number of families
1

Number of comparisons
4

per family

Alpha
0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted P

comparisons test
diff
Significant?
Summary
Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
182.3
Yes
**
0.0072
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
97.19
No
ns
0.4023
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
−1261
Yes
***
<0.0001
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
−2112
Yes
***
<0.0001
E
1000 ng

Test details

Mean rank

Mean rank 1
Mean rank 2
diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
1951
1768
182.3
792
1314
3.120

100 ng vs. 500 ng
1951
1854
97.19
792
1230
1.642

100 ng vs. 750 ng
1951
3211
−1261
792
881
19.82

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
1951
4062
−2112
792
283
23.47

TABLE 27

Statistical analysis for Figure 9Z

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the number of puncta per cell followed by post-

hoc test via Dunn's test with ‘100 ng’ as control group (n = 9, 11, 11, 10, and 4 neurons from 1,

1, 1, 1, and 1 culture for 100 ng, 250 ng, 500 ng, 750 ng, and 1000 ng, respectively).

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.6170

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
5

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
2.656

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
45

Number of families
1

Number of
4

comparisons per

family

Alpha
0.05

Dunn's multiple

Adjusted P

comparisons test
Mean rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
−4.394
No
ns
>0.9999
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
−5.212
No
ns
>0.9999
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
−9.517
No
ns
0.4588
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
−2.292
No
ns
>0.9999
E
1000 ng

Test details
Mean rank 1
Mean rank 2
Mean rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
18.33
22.73
−4.394
9
11
0.7445

100 ng vs. 500 ng
18.33
23.55
−5.212
9
11
0.8832

100 ng vs. 750 ng
18.33
27.85
−9.517
9
10
1.577

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
18.33
20.63
−2.292
9
4
0.2904

TABLE 28

Statistical analysis for Figure 21A

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the degree of clustering followed by post-hoc test

via Dunn's test with the degree of clustering at ‘100 ng’ transfection as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.0055

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
**

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
Yes

Number of groups
5

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
14.64

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
41

Number of families
1

Number of
4

comparisons per

family

Alpha
0.05

Dunn's multiple

Adjusted P

comparisons test
Mean rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
−5.200
No
ns
>0.9999
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
−8.000
No
ns
0.7266
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
7.400
No
ns
0.7712
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
12.50
No
ns
0.2688
E
1000 ng

Mean
Mean rank

Test details
Mean rank 1
rank 2
diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
21.50
26.70
−5.200
8
10
0.9151

100 ng vs. 500 ng
21.50
29.50
−8.000
8
8
1.336

100 ng vs. 750 ng
21.50
14.10
7.400
8
10
1.302

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
21.50
9.000
12.50
8
5
1.830

TABLE 29

Statistical analysis for Figure 21B

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the degree of clustering followed by post-hoc test

via Dunn's test with the degree of clustering at ‘100 ng’ transfection as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.7494

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
5

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
1.926

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
41

Number of families
1

Number of comparisons per family
4

Alpha
0.05

Dunn's multiple

Adjusted P

comparisons test
Mean rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
1.575
No
ns
>0.9999
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
−2.875
No
ns
>0.9999
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
−4.725
No
ns
>0.9999
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
1.675
No
ns
>0.9999
E
1000 ng

Mean rank

Test details
Mean rank 1
Mean rank 2
diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
19.88
18.30
1.575
8
10
0.2772

100 ng vs. 500 ng
19.88
22.75
−2.875
8
8
0.4800

100 ng vs. 750 ng
19.88
24.60
−4.725
8
10
0.8315

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
19.88
18.20
1.675
8
5
0.2453

Development of Modular, Multiplexable Clustering Reagents

The same strategy was further tested to determine whether it could be generalized to make many such clustering reagents. If the design were modular, and an existing fluorescent indicator could be adapted into a multiplexable form, compatible with simultaneous use with other similarly adapted reagents, any desired set of existing fluorescent reporters could in principle be enabled to become a multiplexable set for simultaneous imaging of multiple parts of a signal transduction network, without the laborious trial-and-error optimization common in protein engineering. Due to broad interest in the interplay between Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA dynamics, where feedforward and feedback connections between these signals has been shown to result in complex temporal dynamics of importance for driving cellular functions and states (Cooper, Mons and Karpen, 1995; Borodinsky and Spitzer, 2006; Mehta and Zhang, 2011; Sassone-Corsi, 2012), a high-performance cAMP reporter, cAMPr (Hackley, Mazzoni and Blau, 2018), and a high-performance protein kinase A (PKA) activity reporter, ExRaiAKAR (Mehta et al., 2018) were chosen for these experiments. The GFP-based, non-FRET-based cAMP sensor cAMPr (Hackley, Mazzoni and Blau, 2018) was chosen because a non-FRET-based sensor might require simpler optics than a FRET-based sensor, and might therefore facilitate the higher-speed simultaneous imaging of Ca²⁺ and cAMP in neurons by eliminating the need for filter switching for the single-camera microscopes commonly used in biology. Additionally, because cAMPr and GCaMP6f have identical fluorophores and therefore identical fluorescence spectra, one of skill in the art would expect that they would be indistinguishable to traditional fluorescence imaging strategies based upon spectral information. Both cAMPr and ExRaiAKAR are GFP-based (and thus cannot be used simultaneously with a conventional microscope).

cAMPr-based designs

cAMPr fusions to a variety of de novo-designed coiled-coil-forming peptides and polyhedron-forming peptides designed by analogy to the Coil1/I3-01 combination were screened. A short coiled-coil-forming homo-oligomer previously tested in GCaMP6f fusions was paired with each of the following self-assembling polyhedron-forming peptides: O3-33 (forms a 24-subunit 14 nm sized 480 kDa protein octahedron; King et al., 2012), T3-10 (forms a 12-subunit 11 nm sized 263 kDa protein tetrahedron; King et al., 2012), 3VDX (forms a 12-subunit 16 nm 593 kDa sized protein tetrahedron; Lai, Cascio and Yeates, 2012; Lai et al., 2016), ATC-HL3 (forms a 12-subunit 10 nm sized 365 kDa protein tetrahedron or a 24-subunit 20 nm sized 729 kDa protein octahedron; Lai et al., 2014), and T32-28 (forms a 24-subunit 15 nm sized 440 kDa protein tetrahedron; King et al., 2014), as well as with a group of fiber/foci-forming dihedral homomers (Garcia-Seisdedos et al., 2017) (Tables 1-2). In support of the generality of this approach, all five of these designs formed cAMPr puncta in cultured mouse hippocampal neurons (D_C>1), although the expression level of the design with T32-28 was significantly lower than the other ones (FIG. 20; Table 2).

The construct with the largest Dc (Dc 10²; see FIG. 21C-D for Dc at soma and neurites, Tables HHH-III) for cAMPr consisted of 2L8HC4_15, a homo-tetramer (Boyken et al., 2016), 1M3U, a self-assembling subunit of the 1M3U fiber assembly (Garcia-Seisdedos et al., 2017), and HA, an epitope tag, which was called S2-cAMPr (FIG. 17J; FIG. 8I). S2-cAMPr produced bright puncta in the soma and neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons (FIG. 17K-L; FIG. 8J-K). S2-cAMPr transients appeared similar to those of conventional cAMPr (FIG. 17M), and reported cAMP amplitudes as accurately as conventional cAMPr (FIG. 5N; FIG. 8L-M, Table 30), with similar signal-to-noise ratio (FIG. 17O; FIG. 8N, Table 31) and rise time (FIG. 8O, Table 32) as conventional cAMPr, when stimulated with forskolin in the culture media and compared at the soma, the proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma), and the distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma). (Decay time was not measured because the stimulated cAMP remained elevated throughout these cAMPr and S2-cAMPr imaging sessions, perhaps because forskolin was not removed.) S2-cAMPr puncta were comparable in diameter (FIG. 8P, left), punctum-punctum distance (FIG. 8P, middle), and spatial stationarity (FIG. 8P, right) to those of S1-GCaMP6f. Finally, as with S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr did not alter the electrophysiological properties of neurons (FIG. 18) nor colocalize with subcellular organelles within neurons (FIG. 19). Tables 30-32 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 8M-0; Tables 33-34 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 21C-D.

TABLE 30

Statistical analysis for Figure 8M

Peak fluorescence changes in GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal

neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing cAMPr or 52-cAMPr under 5 μM

forskolin stimulation (n = 11 somata, 22 proximal neurites, and 22 distal neurites from 11

neurons from 5 cultures for cAMPr; n = 13 somata, 26 proximal neurites, and 26 distal neurites

from 13 neurons from 6 cultures for S2-cAMPr). Two-way analysis of variance followed by

post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA
Ordinary

Alpha
0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
0.4967
.718
ns
No

Subcellular
14.54
<.001
***
Yes

location

Molecule
0.004988
.935
ns
No

ANOVA table
SS (Type III)
DF
MS
F (DFn, DFd)
P value

Interaction
5456
2
2728
F (2, 114) =
P = .718

0.3321

Subcellular
159678
2
79839
F (2, 114) =
P < .001

location

9.721

Molecule
54.79
1
54.79
F (1, 114) =
P = .935

0.006672

Residual
936263
114
8213

Difference

between

column means

Predicted (LS)
76.96

mean of

cAMPr

Predicted (LS)
78.39

mean of S2-

cAMPr

Difference
−1.430

between

predicted

means

SE of
17.50

difference

95% CI of difference
−36.10 to

33.24

Number of families
1

Number of
3

comparisons

per family

Alpha
0.05

Bonferroni's
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95.00%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

cAMPr-S2-cAMPr

Soma
−8.429
−98.64 to
No
ns
>.999

81.78

Proximal neurite
−12.31
−76.10 to
No
ns
>.999

51.48

Distal neurite
16.45
−47.34 to
No
ns
>.999

80.24

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS) mean
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

cAMPr-S2-cAMPr

Soma
24.78
33.21
−8.429
37.13
11
13
0.2270
114.0

Proximal neurite
71.20
83.51
−12.31
26.25
22
26
0.4690
114.0

Distal neurite
134.9
118.5
16.45
26.25
22
26
0.6267
114.0

TABLE 31

Statistical analysis for Figure 8N

Signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal

neurites (of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing cAMPr or 52-cAMPr under 5 μM

forskolin stimulation (n = 11 somata, 22 proximal neurites, and 22 distal neurites from 11

neurons from 5 cultures for cAMPr; n = 13 somata, 26 proximal neurites, and 26 distal neurites

from 13 neurons from 6 cultures for 52-cAMPr). Two-way analysis of variance followed by

post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA
Ordinary

Alpha
0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
0.06049
.960
ns
No

Subcellular
2.115
.245
ns
No

location

Molecule
12.23
<.001
***
Yes

ANOVA table
SS (Type III)
DF
MS
F (DFn, DFd)
P value

Interaction
61.93
2
30.97
F (2, 114) =
P = .960

0.04075

Subcellular
2166
2
1083
F (2, 114) =
P = .245

location

1.425

Molecule
12523
1
12523
F (1, 114) =
P < .001

16.48

Residual
86623
114
759.8

Difference between

column means

Predicted (LS)
43.33

mean of cAMPr

Predicted (LS)
21.72

mean of S2-cAMPr

Difference between
21.61

predicted means

SE of difference
5.323

95% CI of
11.07 to

difference
32.16

Number of
1

families

Number of
3

comparisons

per family

Alpha
0.05

Bonferroni's multiple
Predicted (LS)
95.00%

Adjusted

comparisons test
mean diff.
CI of diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

cAMPr-

S2-cAMPr

Soma
22.97
−4.468 to 50.41
No
ns
.133

Proximal neurite
22.26
2.858 to 41.66
Yes
*
.019

Distal neurite
19.60
0.1998 to 39.00
Yes
*
.047

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS) mean
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

cAMPr-S2-cAMPr

Soma
50.81
27.84
22.97
11.29
11
13
2.034
114.0

Proximal neurite
41.64
19.38
22.26
7.985
22
26
2.788
114.0

Distal neurite
37.54
17.94
19.60
7.985
22
26
2.455
114.0

TABLE 32

Statistical analysis for FIG. 8O

Wilcoxon rank sum test of the half

rise time of reported cAMP signals

at the soma after 5 μM forskolin

stimulation (n = 11 neurons from

5 cultures for cAMPr; n = 13

neurons from 6 cultures for S2-cAMPr).

P value
0.4093

ranksum
335.5

zval
0.8252

TABLE 33

Statistical analysis for Figure 21C

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the degree of clustering followed by post-hoc test

via Dunn's test with the degree of clustering at ‘100 ng’ transfection as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.4470

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif.
No

(P < 0.05)?

Number of groups
5

Kruskal -Wallis statistic
3.708

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
44

Number of families
1

Number of
4

comparisons per

family

Alpha
0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted P

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
0.6667
No
ns
>0.9999
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
1.091
No
ns
>0.9999
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
−2.818
No
ns
>0.9999
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
−11.00
No
ns
0.7029
E
1000 ng

Mean rank

Test details
Mean rank 1
Mean rank 2
diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
21.00
20.33
0.6667
5
12
0.09750

100 ng vs. 500 ng
21.00
19.91
1.091
5
11
0.1575

100 ng vs. 750 ng
21.00
23.82
−2.818
5
11
0.4068

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
21.00
32.00
−11.00
5
5
1.354

TABLE 34

Statistical analysis for Figure 21D

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the degree of clustering followed by post-hoc test

via Dunn's test with the degree of clustering at ‘100 ng’ transfection as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.1223

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif.
No

(P < 0.05)?

Number of groups
5

Kruskal -Wallis statistic
7.269

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
33

Number of families
1

Number of comparisons
4

per family

Alpha
0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted P

comparisons test
diff
Significant?
Summary
Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
12.22
No
ns
0.0938
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
12.67
No
ns
0.0754
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
8.000
No
ns
0.7633
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
13.20
No
ns
0.1236
E
1000 ng

Mean rank

Test details
Mean rank 1
Mean rank 2
diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
27.00
14.78
12.22
5
9
2.266

100 ng vs. 500 ng
27.00
14.33
12.67
5
9
2.349

100 ng vs. 750 ng
27.00
19.00
8.000
5
5
1.308

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
27.00
13.80
13.20
5
5
2.158

To further explore the generality of this design strategy, a second successful punctum-forming cAMPr reporter, S2a-cAMPr, was thoroughly characterized using a different set of scaffolding peptides and showed excellent performance (FIG. 17J; Tables 1-2). S2a-cAMPr produced bright puncta in both the soma and neurites in cultured mouse hippocampal neurons, with D_C>10²in the soma and D_C>10³in the neurites, showing S2a-cAMPr as a promising construct for spatial multiplexing (compare FIG. 17K with FIG. 5L). S2a-cAMPr transients appeared similar to those of conventional cAMPr (FIG. 17M), with similar transient amplitudes (FIG. 17N) and signal-to-noise (FIG. 17O) in neurons, when elicited by forskolin and compared at the soma, the proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma), and the distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma). (FIG. 10, Tables 38-40). Tables 11-13 show measurements and statistical analyses of FIGS. 17 J-K; Tables 38-40 show statistical analyses of FIGS. 10E-G.

TABLE 35

Neuronal measurements used in Fig. 17N-O

Peak fluorescence change, GFP channel (dF/F0)

Proximal
Distal
Total

Corresponding

5 μM forskolin
Somata
neurites
neurites
neurons
Cultures
Fig.

cAMPr
11
22
22
11
5
17N

S2-cAMPr
13
26
26
13
6
17N

Signal-to-noise-ratio

5 μM forskolin

cAMPr
11
22
22
11
5
17O

S2-cAMPr
13
26
26
13
6
17O

TABLE 36

Statistical analysis of Fig. 17J

Two-way

ANOVA
Ordinary

Alpha
0.05

Source of
% of total

P value

Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
0.1388
0.956
ns
No

Row Factor
7.643
0.094
ns
No

Column Factor
0.6707
0.513
ns
No

ANOVA table
SS (Type III)
DF
MS
F (DFn, DFd)
P value

Interaction
691.2
2
345.6
F (2, 59) = 0.0448
P = 0.956

Row Factor
38071
2
19035
F (2, 59) = 2.468
P = 0.094

Column Factor
3341
1
3341
F (1, 59) = 0.4331
P = 0.513

Residual
455141
59
7714

Number of families
1

Number of
3

comparisons

per family

Alpha
0.05

95. 00%

Sidak's multiple
Mean
CI of

Adjusted

comparisons test
Diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

cAMPr-S2-cAMPr

Soma
20.62
−99.46 to 140.7
No
ns
0.966

Proximal neurite
18.75
−66.16 to 103.7
No
ns
0.931

Distal neurite
6.098
−78.81 to 91.01
No
ns
0.997

Test details
Mean 1
Mean 2
Mean Diff.
SE of diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

cAMPr-S2-cAMPr

Soma
59.52
38.9
20.62
48.86
6
7
0.4221
59

Proximal neurite
84.39
65.63
18.75
34.55
12
14
0.5428
59

Distal neurite
115.1
109
6.098
34.55
12
14
0.1765
59

TABLE 37

Statistical analysis of FIG. 17K.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

% of total

P value

Source of Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
6.28
0.098
ns
No

Row Factor
17.95
0.002
**
Yes

Column
2.121
0.206
ns
No

Factor

ANOVA
SS
DF
MS
F (DFn, DFd)
P value

table
(Type III)

Interaction
7397
2
3698
F (2, 59) =
P = 0.098

2.42

Row Factor
21140
2
10570
F (2,59) =
P = 0.002

6.916

Column
2498
1
2498
F (1, 59) =
P = 0.206

Factor

1.634

Residual
90171
59
1528

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Sidak's

multiple

95.00%

comparisons
Mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
Diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

cAMPr-S2-

cAMPr

Soma
48.51
−4.937
No
ns
0.086

to 102

Proximal
−7.483
−45.28 to
No
ns
0.949

neurite

30.31

Distal neurite
−1.705
−39.5 to
No
ns
>0.999

36.09

SE of

Test details
Mean 1
Mean 2
Mean Diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

cAMPr-S2-

cAMPr

Soma
97.62
49.11
48.51
21.75
6
7
2.23
59

Proximal neurite
35.54
43.02
−7.483
15.38
12
14
0.4866
59

Distal neurite
23
24.7
−1.705
15.38
12
14
0.1109
59

TABLE 38

Statistical analysis for FIG. 10E

Peak fluorescence changes in GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites (5-25 away

from soma), and distal neurites (50-250 away from soma) of cultured mouse hippocampal

neurons expressing cAMPr or S2a-cAMPr after 5 μM forskolin stimulation (n = 8 somata, 16

proximal neurites, and 16 distal neurites from 8 neurons from 5 cultures for cAMPr; n = 13

somata, 26 proximal neurites, and 26 distal neurites from 13 neurons from 9 cultures for S2a-

cAMPr). Two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Sidak's multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

% of total

P value

Source of Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
0.1095
.940
ns
No

Subcellular
10.05
.005
**
Yes

location

Molecule
1.866
.149
ns
No

ANOVA table
SS
DF
MS
F (DFn, DFd)
P value

(Type III)

Interaction
685.5
2
342.7
F (2, 99) =
P = .940

0.06195

Subcellular
62914
2
31457
F (2, 99) =
P = .005

location

5.686

Molecule
11681
1
11681
F (1, 99) =
P = .149

2.111

Residual
547707
99
5532

Difference

between

column means

Predicted (LS)
91.80

mean of

cAMPr

Predicted (LS)
68.90

mean of S2a-

cAMPr

Difference
22.89

between

predicted

means

SE of
15.76

difference

95% CI of
−8.369 to

difference
54.16

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Sidak's
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95.00%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

cAMPr-

S2a-cAMPr

Soma
21.07
−60.11 to
No
ns
.896

102.3

Proximal
18.05
−39.35 to
No
ns
.831

neurite

75.45

Distal
29.56
−27.84 to
No
ns
.514

neurite

86.96

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS) mean
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

cAMPr-

S2a-cAMPr

Soma
57.49
36.42
21.07
33.42
8
13
0.6305
99.00

Proximal neurite
88.98
70.93
18.05
23.63
16
26
0.7638
99.00

Distal neurite
128.9
99.36
29.56
23.63
16
26
1.251
99.00

TABLE 39

Statistical analysis for FIG. 10F

Signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites (5-25 μm away

from soma), and distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma) of cultured mouse hippocampal

neurons expressing cAMPr or S2a-cAMPr under 5 μM forskolin stimulation (n = 8 somata, 16

proximal neurites, and 16 distal neurites from 8 neurons from 5 cultures for cAMPr; n = 13

somata, 26 proximal neurites, and 26 distal neurites from 13 neurons from 9 cultures for S2a-

cAMPr). Two-way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Sidak's multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

% of total

P value

Source of Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
3.822
.109
ns
No

Subcellular
10.56
.003
**
Yes

location

Molecule
6.620
.006
**
Yes

ANOVA table
SS
DF
MS
F (DFn, DFd)
P value

(Type III)

Interaction
5549
2
2775
F (2, 99) =
P = .109

2.264

Subcellular
15328
2
7664
F (2, 99) =
P = .003

location

6.252

Molecule
9610
1
9610
F (1, 99) =
P = .006

7.840

Residual
121350
99
1226

Difference

between

column means

Predicted (LS)
48.58

mean of

cAMPr

Predicted (LS)
27.81

mean of S2a-

cAMPr

Difference
20.77

between

predicted

means

SE of
7.416

difference

95% CI of
6.050 to

difference
35.48

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Sidak's multiple
Predicted
95.00%

comparisons
(LS)
CI of

Adjusted

test
mean diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

cAMPr-

S2a-cAMPr

Soma
45.13
6.915 to
Yes
*
.015

83.34

Proximal neurite
12.20
−14.82 to
No
ns
.620

39.22

Distal neurite
4.970
−22.05 to
No
ns
.959

31.99

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS) mean
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

cAMPr-

S2a-cAMPr

Soma
79.73
34.61
45.13
15.73
8
13
2.868
99.00

Proximal neurite
40.41
28.21
12.20
11.12
16
26
1.097
99.00

Distal neurite
25.59
20.62
4.970
11.12
16
26
0.4467
99.00

TABLE 40

Statistical analysis for FIG. 10G

Wilcoxon rank sum test of the half rise

time of reported cAMP signals at the

soma after 5 μM forskolin stimulation

(n = 8 neurons from 5 cultures for

cAMPr; n = 13 neurons from 9

cultures for S2a-cAMPr).

P value
0.3649

ranksum
0.9061

zval
101

Movements of the puncta of S1-GCaMP6f (FIG. 22A) and S2a-cAMPr (FIG. 22B) were not detectable during imaging sessions here performed. The nearest-neighbor distances between S1-GCaMP6f (or S2a-cAMPr) puncta were in the few micron range at the soma (FIG. 17P; n=54 puncta from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for S1-GCaMP6f; n=86 puncta from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for S2a-cAMPr), and were within a wider range of distances (but still primarily in the range 2-8 microns) in the dendrites (FIG. 17Q; n=270 puncta from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for S1-GCaMP6f; n=313 puncta from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for S2a-cAMPr).

Experimental results showed that the dual peptide-scaffolded SiRIs indeed were modularly assemblable: almost all the polyhedron/coil hybrid scaffolds that were tested provided D_C>100, and a given scaffold could be used successfully with different sensors, showing the generality of the strategy (although of course, testing in cells is required for validation, as with any protein engineering project) (Table 2).

ExRaiAKAR-Based Designs

Additional constructs were made using ExRaiAKAR and were similarly tested to further demonstrate this strategy (FIG. 17R, Tables 1-2). S3-ExRaiAKAR, the construct with the largest D_C(D_C˜10²; FIG. 17R; FIG. 21E-F for Dc at soma and neurites, Tables 44-45) for ExRaiAKAR consisted of 5L6HC3_1, a homo-trimer (Boyken et al., 2016), 3VDX, a self-assembling subunit of a tetrahedron (Lai et al., 2016), and V5, an epitope tag (FIG. 8Q; Tables 1-2). Unlike ExRaiAKAR, S3-ExRaiAKAR formed puncta in live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons (compare FIG. 17S and FIG. 17T; FIG. 8R-S). As in previous experiments, fluorescent signals were recorded from the soma, proximal neurites, and distal neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiAKAR (FIG. 17U; left panel) or S3-ExRaiAKAR (FIG. 175U; right panel) under 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=1 minute (min). Each fluorescent signal for S3-ExRaiAKAR was measured from a single punctum. Similar to the results observed with S1-GCaMP6f and S2a-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR transients appeared similar to those of conventional ExRaiAKAR under 5 μM forskolin stimulation at t=1 minute (min) and compared at the soma, the proximal neurites (5-25 μm away from soma), and the distal neurites (50-250 μm away from soma) (FIG. 17U), with similar transient amplitudes (FIG. 17V; n=9 somata, 18 proximal neurites, and 18 distal neurites from 9 neurons from 3 cultures for ExRaiAKAR; n=22 somata, 44 proximal neurites, and 44 distal neurites from 22 neurons from 6 cultures for S3-ExRaiAKAR) and signal-to-noise ratios (FIG. 17W; n=9 somata, 18 proximal neurites, and 18 distal neurites from 9 neurons from 3 cultures for ExRaiAKAR; n=22 somata, 44 proximal neurites, and 44 distal neurites from 22 neurons from 6 cultures for S3-ExRaiAKAR). S3-ExRaiAKAR reported PKA activity as accurately (FIG. 8T-U, Table 41) and with as good signal-to-noise ratio (FIG. 8V, Table 42) and rise time (FIG. 8W, Table 43) as conventional ExRaiAKAR, when stimulated with forskolin in the culture media. (Decay time was not measured because the stimulated PKA remained activated throughout these imaging sessions.) As with S1- and S2-clustered puncta, S3-ExRaiAKAR puncta were small (FIG. 8X, left), closely packed (FIG. 8X, middle), and stationary (FIG. 8X, right), and did not alter the electrophysiological properties of neurons (FIG. 18) nor colocalize with subcellular organelles (FIG. 19). Tables 41-43 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 8U-W; Tables 44-45 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 21E-F.

TABLE 41

Statistical analysis for FIG. 8U

Peak fluorescence changes in GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal

neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiAKAR or S3-ExRaiAKAR

under 5 μM forskolin stimulation (n = 5 somata, 10 proximal neurites, and 10 distal neurites

from 5 neurons from 4 cultures for ExRaiAKAR; n = 5 somata, 10 proximal neurites, and 10

distal neurites from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for S3-ExRaiAKAR). Two-way analysis of

variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

% of total

P value

Source of Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
12.20
.055
ns
No

Subcellular
1.197
.739
ns
No

location

Molecule
0.6771
.560
ns
No

ANOVA table
SS
DF
MS
F (DFn, DFd)
P value

(Type III)

Interaction
759.3
2
379.7
F (2, 44) =
P = .055

3.105

Subcellular
74.51
2
37.26
F (2, 44) =
P = .739

location

0.3047

Molecule
42.15
1
42.15
F (1, 44) =
P = .560

0.3447

Residual
5381
44
122.3

Difference

between column

means

Predicted (LS)
48.05

mean of

ExRaiAKAR

Predicted (LS)
46.12

mean of S3-

ExRaiAKAR

Difference
1.936

between

predicted means

SE of difference
3.297

95% CI of
−4.709 to

difference
8.580

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni's
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95.00%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

ExRaiAKAR-S3-

ExRaiAKAR

Soma
6.890
−10.52 to
No
ns
.990

24.30

Proximal
7.513
−4.796 to
No
ns
.408

neurite

19.82

Distal
−8.597
−20.91 to
No
ns
.267

neurite

3.712

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

(LS)
(LS)
(LS) mean
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

ExRaiAKAR-S3-

ExRaiAKA

Soma
49.52
42.63
6.890
6.994
5
5
0.9852
44.00

Proximal neurite
52.53
45.02
7.513
4.946
10
10
1.519
44.00

Distal neurite
42.10
50.70
−8.597
4.946
10
10
1.738
44.00

TABLE 42

Statistical analysis for FIG. 8V

Signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal

neurites (of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiAKAR or S3-ExRaiAKAR

under 5 μM forskolin stimulation (n = 5 somata, 10 proximal neurites, and 10 distal neurites 10

from 5 neurons from 4 cultures for ExRaiAKAR; n = 5 somata, 10 proximal neurites, and

distal neurites from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for S3-ExRaiAKAR). Two-way analysis of

variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

% of total

P value

Source of Variation
variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
6.918
.139
ns
No

Subcellular
18.91
.007
**
Yes

location

Molecule
0.8782
.473
ns
No

ANOVA table
SS
DF
MS
F (DFn, DFd)
P value

(Type III)

Interaction
785.5
2
392.8
F (2, 44) =
P = .139

2.062

Subcellular
2147
2
1074
F (2, 44) =
P = .007

location

5.636

Molecule
99.72
1
99.72
F (1, 44) =
P = .473

0.5234

Residual
8383
44
190.5

Difference

between column

means

Predicted (LS)
25.16

mean of

ExRaiAKAR

Predicted (LS)
22.18

mean of S3-

ExRaiAKAR

Difference
2.977

between predicted

means

SE of difference
4.115

95% CI of
−5.316 to

difference
11.27

Number of families 1

Number of comparisonsper family 3

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni's
Predicted

multiple
(LS)
95.00%

comparisons
mean
CI of

Adjusted

test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

ExRaiAKAR-S3-

ExRaiAKAR

Soma
8.965
−12.76
No
ns
.930

to 30.69

Proximal
7.884
−7.480
No
ns
.625

neurite

to 23.25

Distal
−7.917
−23.28
No
ns
.619

neurite

to 7.447

Predicted

Predicted
Predicted
(LS)

(LS)
(LS)
mean
SE of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

ExRaiAKAR-S3-

ExRaiAKAR

Soma
36.40
27.44
8.965
8.730
5
5
1.027
44.00

Proximal neurite
28.28
20.40
7.884
6.173
10
10
1.277
44.00

Distal neurite
10.78
18.70
−7.917
6.173
10
10
1.283
44.00

TABLE 43

Statistical analysis for FIG. 8W

Wilcoxon rank sum test of the half rise

time of reported PKA signals at the

soma after 5 μM forskolin stimulation

(n = 5 neurons from 4 cultures for

ExRaiAKAR; n = 5 neurons from 5

cultures for S3-ExRaiAKAR).

P value
0.8413

ranksum
29

TABLE 44

Statistical analysis for FIG. 21E

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the degree of clustering followed by post-hoc test

via Dunn's test with the degree of clustering at ‘100 ng’ transfection as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.0217

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
*

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
Yes

Number of groups
5

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
11.48

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
25

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 4

Alpha 0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
8.000
No
ns
0.3427
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
2.400
No
ns
>0.9999
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
−2.400
No
ns
>0.9999
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
11.00
No
ns
0.0725
E
1000 ng

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
16.80
8.800
8.000
5
5
1.719

100 ng vs. 500 ng
16.80
14.40
2.400
5
5
0.5156

100 ng vs. 750 ng
16.80
19.20
−2.400
5
5
0.5156

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
16.80
5.800
11.00
5
5
2.363

TABLE 45

Statistical analysis for FIG. 21F

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the degree of clustering followed by post-hoc test

via Dunn's test with the degree of clustering at ‘100 ng’ transfection as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.1207

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
No

Number of groups
5

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
7.303

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
25

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 4

Alpha 0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
0.4000
No
ns
>0.9999
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
0.4000
No
ns
>0.9999
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
7.800
No
ns
0.3752
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
−4.600
No
ns
>0.9999
E
1000 ng

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
13.80
13.40
0.4000
5
5
0.08593

100 ng vs. 500 ng
13.80
13.40
0.4000
5
5
0.08593

100 ng vs. 750 ng
13.80
6.000
7.800
5
5
1.676

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
13.80
18.40
−4.600
5
5
0.9882

To further test the strategy and investigate Akt (Protein Kinase B (PKB)) activity, an S3-ExRaiAktAR reporter was prepared by replacing the ExRaiAKAR sequence in the S3-ExRaiAKAR polypeptide with ExRaiAktAR, a fluorescent sensor for Akt/PKB (Mehta et al., 2018). S3-ExRaiAktAR was expressed in cultured mouse hippocampal neurons, and as with S3-ExRaiAKAR, green puncta were observed at the soma and neurites in neurons via fluorescent imaging. Following stimulation of neurons expressing S3-ExRaiAktAR with N-Methyl-d-aspartic acid (NMDA) which is known to increase Akt activity, the S3-ExRaiAktAR green puncta reported increased Akt activity (data not shown).

Thus, the results of these experiments showed that the combination of polyhedron-assembling motifs and coiled-coil forming motifs enables multiple kinds of fluorescent reporter to self-assemble into clusters, effectively, robustly, and safely.

Example 3. Simultaneous Spatially Multiplexed Imaging

These experiments were performed to investigate whether the SiRI toolbox for Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA could be used simultaneously to map out relationships between signals within this complex network, in response to a biologically meaningful stimulus. Simultaneous measurements of Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA within a single cell is important because of the many ways that these signals may interact with one another, with both feedforward pathways and feedback loops potentially connecting them, in their coupling of cellular input to cellular output. For example, the time dynamics of one signal may influence the amplitude of another signal within this network, important because such relationships determine whether this signal transduction network may effectively drive a cellular output function or state in response to a given cellular input stimulus (Abrams, Karl and Kandel, 1991; Cooper, Mons and Karpen, 1995; Borodinsky and Spitzer, 2006; Mehta and Zhang, 2011; Sassone-Corsi, 2012).

Materials and Methods

See methods described in Examples 1-2 and described in Experiments, Results, and Discussion section.

Experiments, Results, and Discussion
Spatially Multiplexed Imaging of GFP-Based Sensors in Neurons

First, S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, and the cell morphology marker miRFP were co-expressed in cultured mouse hippocampal neurons. Live cell imaging was performed at 20 frames per second in the GFP channel with extracellular stimulation by 5 μM forskolin, and two-color immunostaining was performed against the Xpress epitope (which was added as part of the S1-GCaMP6f protein; FIG. 17A) and against the HA epitope (which was added as part of the S2a-cAMPr protein, FIG. 17J). The S1-GCaMP6f and S2a-cAMPr puncta were identified post-hoc via the post-hoc immunostaining (FIG. 23A, entire neuron; FIG. 23B, highlighted dendrite), observing simultaneous Ca²⁺ and cAMP response from sites along a dendrite that were ˜5 microns away (FIG. 23C). The number of puncta ranged in the dozens in somata, and in the few hundreds in the neurites (FIG. 23D). To evaluate whether there was crosstalk between the two self-assembling systems, the number of S1-GCaMP6f puncta (as identified by Xpress staining) that did not contain S2a-cAMPr (as identified by HA staining) was quantified, and vice versa. It was found that ˜90% of the puncta of one kind were free from contamination from the other kind (FIG. 23E), indicating a low level of crosstalk; one could always exclude the puncta with both stains from analysis if more stringency is desired. This high orthogonality of clustering, as well as the function of clustered sensors, held when these two constructs were tried in HeLa cells as well (see FIG. 24A-E).

As with HeLa cells, Ca²⁺, and cAMP responses in neurons exhibited different relationships that were apparent when simultaneously measured, but which would be lost if measured in separate populations of neurons and then compared in the aggregate. For example, when measured at the soma (FIG. 25), neurons exhibited Ca²⁺ responses that could be oscillatory (cells 1, 3, 4, 6) or smooth (cells 2, 5), whereas cAMP responses were relatively smooth and non-oscillatory (cells 1-6). This finding raises the question of whether Ca²⁺-cAMP coupling might vary from neuron to neuron as a function of cell state. These relationships varied in the soma vs. the dendrite: for example, some neurons had similar Ca²⁺-cAMP relationships in the dendrites as in the soma (cells 1, 3, 4), but others varied in the oscillatory quality of the Ca²⁺ responses at different points in the cell (cells 2, 5, 6). These results hint at how the interactions between different signaling cascades might be modulated by cell state, although full characterization of whether and how these interactions are modulated would require scientific probing via many different techniques (pharmacological blockade, gene silencing, etc.) and thus are beyond the scope of this technology-oriented study.

Spatially Multiplexed Imaging of Three GFP-Based Sensors in Single Neurons

Spatially multiplexed imaging was further tested by co-expressing three (S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, and S3-ExRaiAKAR; FIG. 26A-J; FIG. 13A-C) and the cell morphology marker miRFP in cultured mouse hippocampal neurons. Volumetric live imaging of neurons was performed in the GFP channel to record simultaneous Ca²⁺, cAMP and PKA responses to forskolin stimulation, which as a pharmacological driver of cAMP production has been used as one of many model stimuli for inducing synaptic plasticity (such as long-term potentiation, LTP (Chavez-Noriega and Stevens, 1992; Barco, Alarcon and Kandel, 2002; Otmakhov et al., 2004; Wozny et al., 2008; Li et al., 2018)), neural survival (Hanson et al., 1998), neural growth (Chijiwa et al., 1990), and many other important functions and disease-related processes in neurons. Furthermore, as described elsewhere herein, cAMP production can directly drive PKA activation, and through cAMP-dependent ion channels and effects downstream of PKA, modulate Ca²⁺ influx and intracellular store release as well (which in turn can modulate cAMP production via Ca²⁺-modulated adenylyl cyclases), making it a meaningful node of this signal transduction network to selectively control. Forskolin has been used on multiple kinds of cultured neurons and been shown to engage not only cAMP production, but also cAMP-dependent modulation of Ca²⁺ concentration and PKA activity (Zanassi et al., 2001; Gorbunova and Spitzer, 2002; Otsuguro et al., 2005). Forskolin-induced changes in cAMP have also been shown to increase the frequency of Ca²⁺ oscillations in some, but not all, neurons thus treated (Gorbunova and Spitzer, 2002), motivating further the simultaneous imaging of multiple signals within individual cells, so that any heterogeneity across cells of cAMP-Ca²⁺ coupling may be observed and analyzed in terms of how such variation in cellular state might modulate cellular output.

Simultaneous imaging of three fluorescent reporters of Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA that are based on different fluorescent proteins (Mehta et al., 2018) would require either filter switching and the reuse of the camera for serial imaging of the three channels, which may slow down the frame rate of imaging, or multiple light paths and cameras, increasing instrument complexity and expense. In addition, the use of multiple fluorophores would typically involve the risk of bleedthrough of light from one sensor into a separate spectral channel, requiring extensive characterization of how sets of sensors overlap before they are used in a given experiment, and computational correction to unmix the signals could add additional complexity or error due to potential sample-to-sample variation of the bleedthrough. These experiments therefore investigated whether the use of SiRIs with fluorophores all of the same color, made possible a recording rate of 5 seconds per volume, using just one filter set, and whether SiRIs avoided bleedthrough concerns due to their spatially multiplexed nature.

After performing live imaging, the neurons were fixed and three-color immunostaining was performed against the epitopes associated with each scaffold (FIG. 8A, 8H, 8O, Table 32), so that the reporter identity associated with each puncta could be derived (FIG. 13B-C, top; FIG. 12A-F, additional fields of view of the neuron), and time courses of each signal associated with each punctum (FIG. 13B-C, bottom; FIG. 12A-F, additional fields of view of the neuron). Each reporter was found in tens of distinct locations within cell bodies, and hundreds of distinct locations along neurites of neurons (FIG. 13D). The vast majority (˜90%) of the puncta were unique to one reporter, and not colocalized with puncta of other kinds, indicating orthogonality of the clustering reagents, and spatial separation between the reporters (FIG. 13E; puncta with multi-reporter overlap were not analyzed in the dynamics studies that follow). Puncta were comparable in size (FIG. 13F, left) and punctum-punctum distance (FIG. 13F, right) when expressed together, as when expressed alone (FIG. 8, Tables 11-13, 30-32, and 41-43). For forskolin provided in this globally administered fashion, it was observed that Ca²⁺ responses were highly correlated across different sites within the soma, across different points within single neurites (sampled along neurite locations 20-60 μm away from the soma), and across neurites within a given neuron, although comparing Ca²⁺ at a point in the soma vs. a point in a neurite showed a somewhat lower correlation (FIG. 12G, Table 46); cAMP (FIG. 12H, Table 47) and PKA activity (FIG. 12I, Table 48) were also highly correlated across different points within a neuron. These three SiRIs were used simultaneously in HeLa cells as well (FIG. 11). Tables 46-48 show statistical analyses of FIGS. 12G-I.

TABLE 46

Statistical analysis for FIG. 12G

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for Pearson correlation coefficients of the Ca²⁺

responses recorded from soma and neurite localized puncta within single cultured mouse

hippocampal neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP,

followed by post-hoc Dunn's multiple comparisons test with ‘two adjacent puncta at soma’ as

control group (n = 8 neurons from 8 cultures).

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.0008

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
***

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
Yes

Number of groups
6

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
21.08

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

Two adjacent puncta
4.750
No
ns
>0.9999

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at soma

Two adjacent puncta
1.000
No
ns
>0.9999

at soma vs.

Two adjacent puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
17.75
No
ns
0.0561

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
15.38
No
ns
0.1403

at soma vs.

Two punctaat

two neurites

Two adjacent punctaat
24.88
Yes
**
0.0019

soma vs.

One soma punctum

and

one neurite punctum

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

Two adjacent puncta
35.13
30.38
4.750
8
8
0.6786

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at soma

Two adjacent puncta
35.13
34.13
1.000
8
8
0.1429

at soma vs.

Two adjacent puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
35.13
17.38
17.75
8
8
2.536

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
35.13
19.75
15.38
8
8
2.196

at soma vs.

Two puncta

at two neurites

Two adjacent puncta
35.13
10.25
24.88
8
8
3.554

at soma vs.

One soma punctum

and

one neurite punctum

TABLE 47

Statistical analysis for FIG. 12H

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for Pearson correlation coefficients of the cAMP

responses recorded from soma and neurite localized puncta within single cultured mouse

hippocampal neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP,

followed by post-hoc Dunn's multiple comparisons test with ‘two adjacent puncta at soma’ as

control group (n = 5 neurons from 5 cultures).

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.1526

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
No

Number of groups
6

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
8.066

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

Two adjacent puncta
6.600
No
ns
>0.9999

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at soma

Two adjacent puncta
7.600
No
ns
0.8613

at soma vs.

Two adjacent puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
11.00
No
ns
0.2410

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
5.200
No
ns
>0.9999

at soma vs.

Two puncta

at two neurites

Two adjacent puncta
14.60
Yes
*
0.0437

at soma vs.

One soma punctum

and

one neurite punctum

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

Two adjacent puncta
23.00
16.40
6.600
5
5
1.185

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at soma

Two adjacent puncta
23.00
15.40
7.600
5
5
1.365

at soma vs.

Two adjacent puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
23.00
12.00
11.00
5
5
1.976

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
23.00
17.80
5.200
5
5
0.9339

at soma vs.

Two puncta

at two neurites

Two adjacent puncta
23.00
8.400
14.60
5
5
2.622

at soma vs.

One soma punctum

and

one neurite punctum

TABLE 48

Statistical analysis for FIG. 121

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for Pearson correlation coefficients of the PKA

responses recorded from soma and neurite localized puncta within single cultured mouse

hippocampal neurons co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and miRFP,

followed by post-hoc Dunn's multiple comparisons test with ‘two adjacent puncta at soma’ as

control group (n = 5 neurons from 5 cultures).

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.7511

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
No

Number of groups
6

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
2.667

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

Two adjacent puncta
−1.000
No
ns
>0.9999

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at soma

Two adjacent puncta
0.2000
No
ns
>0.9999

at soma vs.

Two adjacent puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
2.400
No
ns
>0.9999

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
5.000
No
ns
>0.9999

at soma vs.

Two puncta

at two neurites

Two adjacent puncta
6.000
No
ns
>0.9999

at soma vs.

One soma punctum

and

one neurite punctum

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

Two adjacent puncta
17.60
18.60
−1.000
5
5
0.1796

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at soma

Two adjacent puncta
17.60
17.40
0.2000
5
5
0.03592

at soma vs.

Two adjacent puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
17.60
15.20
2.400
5
5
0.4311

at soma vs.

Two distant puncta

at the same neurite

Two adjacent puncta
17.60
12.60
5.000
5
5
0.8980

at soma vs.

Two puncta

at two neurites

Two adjacent puncta
17.60
11.60
6.000
5
5
1.078

at soma vs.

One soma punctum

and

one neurite punctum

Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA activity was imaged in 24 neurons during and after 3 min of forskolin stimulation (FIG. 27, raw data; Tables 49-52). When averaged across all neurons, it was observed that increases in Ca²⁺ and cAMP levels decayed after removal of forskolin, and PKA activity persisted after removal of forskolin, at both somatic (FIG. 13G, left) and neurite locations (FIG. 13G, right; sampled at neurite locations 20-60 μm away from the soma; responses were highly correlated across neurite locations within a neuron). Thus, SiRIs were used to perform simultaneous imaging of multiple signals within single living cells, revealing their response to a stimulus.

As referred to elsewhere herein, forskolin-driven cAMP has been shown to increase the frequency of spontaneous Ca²⁺ oscillations, in some, but not all, neurons thus treated (Gorbunova and Spitzer, 2002). It was observed that some cultured hippocampal neurons exhibited transient, often oscillatory, somatic Ca²⁺ responses, with each increase in Ca²⁺ concentration lasting 1 minute or less (FIG. 13H), whereas others exhibited sustained Ca²⁺ responses at the soma, with at least one Ca²⁺ elevation event lasting for ˜2-6 minutes (FIG. 13I). Analyzing whether the transient versus sustained Ca²⁺ responses differed in other ways revealed that neurons with sustained Ca²⁺ responses had significantly higher peak Ca²⁺ increases during forskolin stimulation than neurons with transient Ca²⁺ responses (FIG. 13J, Table 49). However, the peak Ca²⁺ amplitudes measured after forskolin removal, and the peak Ca²⁺ amplitudes when considered over the entire time course of the experiment, were similar across the two groups (FIG. 13J, Table 49). It was therefore hypothesized that neurons with transient Ca²⁺ responses were also delayed in their Ca²⁺ responses, relative to the neurons with sustained Ca²⁺ responses. When the time after forskolin administration when Ca²⁺ reached the half-rise point to its peak was analyzed, and considered over the entire time course of the experiment, transient Ca²⁺ response neurons had latencies ˜1.2 minutes longer (˜58% longer) than sustained Ca²⁺ response neurons (FIG. 13J, Table 49). These variations may have resulted from the presence of different kinds, or amounts, of signal transduction machinery that connect cAMP signals to Ca²⁺ signals.

Because Ca²⁺ and cAMP signals could influence each other bidirectionally, experiments were then performed to investigate whether such variations in Ca²⁺ dynamics were associated with any variations in cAMP dynamics. Neurons that exhibited sustained, shorter-latency Ca²⁺ responses at the soma had faster rises in cAMP at the soma than did those with transient, longer-latency Ca²⁺ responses (FIG. 13K, Table 50). This could have resulted because the sustained, shorter-latency Ca²⁺ responses fed back upon the forskolin-driven cAMP responses to accelerate them, or because the faster initial cAMP response to forskolin fed forward to result in faster Ca²⁺ responses. Next, these variations in cAMP and Ca²⁺ dynamics were analyzed to determine whether they were associated with variations in PKA signaling, which as a sustained activity that persists beyond the duration of forskolin stimulation (FIG. 13G), might represent a potential output state of this signaling network, in the context of this experiment. PKA signals at the soma not only rose faster in neurons with sustained, short-latency Ca²⁺ responses and fast cAMP increases, than in neurons with transient, longer-latency Ca²⁺ responses and slower cAMP increases, but also achieved higher activity levels at the end of the experiment (FIG. 13L, Table 51). Similar relationships were apparent when Ca′, cAMP, and PKA activities were analyzed at sites along neurites (FIG. 27, Tables 49-52).

Thus, the simultaneous nature of SiRI-based imaging of multiple components of a signal transduction network allowed the derivation of relationships between the different components, and, ultimately, the analysis of how dynamics within the network related to network output. Importantly, such relationships could not be derived by inspecting FIG. 13G—that is, the relationship between the temporal structure of Ca²⁺ dynamics, the rate of cAMP signaling, and the rate and magnitude of PKA signaling could not be derived by observing these signals in separate cells, and then comparing them after averaging. Future studies could use SiRIs to help determine whether there are different factors present in cells with sustained versus transient Ca²⁺ responses—e.g. whether the former have more Ca²⁺ conducting channels, or more proteins that couple cAMP to Ca²⁺, or whether there are additional connections within the feedback loops that couple different messengers to each other. Tables 49-52 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 13J-L, and FIGS. 27C-O.

TABLE 49

Statistical analysis for FIG. 13J, FIG. 27C, and FIGS. 27F-27I

Throughout this table (unless specified otherwise): statistical

tests were performed between the ‘transient calcium responses’

type and the ‘sustained calcium responses’ type; for ‘transient

calcium responses’ type, n = 7 somata from 7 neurons from

6 cultures and n = 7 neurites from 7 neurons from 7 cultures;

for ‘sustained calcium responses’ type, n = 17 somata

from 17 neurons from 12 cultures and n = 16 neurites

from 16 neurons from 12 cultures.

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

somatic Ca²⁺ overall

peak response (from the

onset of forskolin stimulation

to the end of recording)

P value
0.0754

zval
−1.7783

ranksum
59

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

somatic Ca²⁺ peak

response during forskolin

stimulation

P value
0.0158

zval
−2.4134

ranksum
49

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

somatic Ca²⁺ peak

response after forskolin

stimulation (from the end

of forskolin stimulation

to the end of recording)

P value
0.1274

zval
−1.5243

ranksum
63

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

the time to half rise

of somatic Ca²⁺

response (the duration from

the onset of forskolin

stimulation to the

time when Ca²⁺

response first reaches

half of the overall

peak response)

P value
0.0092

zval
2.6039

ranksum
129

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

neurite Ca²⁺ overall

peak response (from the

onset of forskolin stimulation

to the end of recording)

P value
0.0111

zval
−2.5404

ranksum
47

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

neurite Ca²⁺ peak

response during forskolin

stimulation

P value
0.0052

zval
−2.7945

ranksum
43

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

neurite Ca²⁺ peak

response after forskolin

stimulation (from the end

of forskolin stimulation to

the end of recording)

P value
0.0076

zval
−2.6675

ranksum
45

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

the time to half rise

of neurite Ca²⁺

response (the duration from

the onset of forskolin

stimulation to the time

when Ca²⁺ response

first reaches half of

the overall peak response)

P value
0.0045

zval
2.8404

ranksum
127

TABLE 50

Statistical analysis for FIG. 3K, FIG. S10D, and FIGS. S10J-S10L

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

somatic cAMP peak response

P value
0.7995

ranksum
83

zval
−0.2540

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

neurite cAMP peak response

P value
0.8673

ranksum
81

zval
−0.1670

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

somatic cAMP rise slope

P value
0.0158

ranksum
49

zval
−2.4134

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

neurite cAMP rise slope

P value
0.0083

ranksum
44

zval
−2.6392

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

somatic cAMP decay slope

P value
0.8489

ranksum
91

zval
0.1905

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

neurite cAMP decay slope

P value
0.2703

ranksum
101

zval
1.1025

TABLE 51

Statistical analysis for FIG. 13L, FIG. 27E, and FIGS. 27M-27N

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

somatic PKA peak response

P value
0.0490

ranksum
56

zval
−1.9688

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

neurite PKA peak response

P value
0.0083

ranksum
44

zval
−2.6392

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

somatic PKA rise slope

P value
7.6248e−04

ranksum
34

zval
−3.3661

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

neurite PKA rise slope

P value
0.0353

ranksum
52

zval
−2.1047

TABLE 52

Statistical analysis for FIG. 27O

Wilcoxon rank sum test for the punctum sizes

of puncta in the GFP channel, between those in

neurons with ‘transient calcium responses’ and

those in neurons with ‘sustained calcium responses’

under 50 μM forskolin stimulation for 3 minutes

(n = 512 and 630 puncta in 5 and 5 neurons

co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR,

and miRFP from 5 and 5 cultures for neurons with

‘transient calcium responses’ and neurons with

‘sustained calcium responses’, respectively).

P value
0.1890

ranksum
2.9989e+05

zval
1.3137

Spatially Multiplexed Imaging of More than 3 Fluorescent Reporters in Neurons, and Combined Spatial and Spectral Multiplexing

Spatially multiplexed imaging was further tested by co-expressing multiple (S1-GCaMP6f, S2a-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and S4-ExRaiCKAR; FIG. 28A-M) GFP-based sensors in single live cultured mouse hippocampal neurons. The modularity of SiRI design, generation, and utilization, was further explored by attempting to generate, and use, 4 and even 5 SiRIs at once. Examples of 4 or 5 fluorescent reporters of dynamic signaling being used at once were not known to the investigators, perhaps because not enough dynamic fluorescent reporters of different colors had been generated to date. First, a clustered variant of ExRaiCKAR, a GFP-based protein kinase C (PKC) activity reporter (Mehta et al., 2018) was engineered by using pairs of two-component polyhedron-forming peptides rather than re-applying the previous design that combined one single-component polyhedron-forming peptide and one homo-oligomer-forming short peptide. Designs using pairs of two-component polyhedron-forming peptides would be advantageous because their abundance (over a hundred pairs were computationally designed and characterized in (Bale et al., 2016) alone) could potentially open up a new family of designs for SiRI constructs—still within the domain of dual peptide-scaffolding, but of a different kind. Pairs of two-component icosahedron-forming peptides (I32-06A+I32-06B, I52_03A+I52_03B, and I53_34A+I53_34B, randomly selected from (Bale et al., 2016); Table 1) were fused to ExRaiCKAR, with one component to the N-terminus and the other to the C-terminus, together with an epitope tag OLLAS (Table 2). Both I32-06A+I32-06B fused to ExRaiCKAR (named S4-ExRaiCKAR; FIG. 15A, construct design; compare expression in 15B-C; FIG. 21G-H, Dc at soma and neurites, Tables LLL-MMM) and I52_03A+I52_03B fused to ExRaiCKAR produced bright puncta (D_C˜10²) in the soma and neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons. S4-ExRaiCKAR had a slightly larger Dc and was thus chosen for further characterization. In contrast, I53_34A+I53_34B fused to ExRaiCKAR did not yield any expression. S4-ExRaiCKAR exhibited responses similar to those of conventional ExRaiCKAR (FIG. 15D), with comparable amplitude (FIG. 15E, Table 53), signal-to-noise ratio (FIG. 15F, Table 54), and rise time (FIG. 15G, Table 55), when elicited by phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA), a PKC activator. S4-ExRaiCKAR puncta were similar in size (FIG. 15H, left) and punctum-punctum distance (FIG. 15H, middle) as other SiRIs, with good stationarity in neurons over periods of 1 hour (FIG. 15H, right). S4-ExRaiCKAR did not alter the electrophysiological properties of neurons (FIG. 18, Tables 56-62) nor colocalize with markers of subcellular organelles (FIG. 19). Tables 53-55 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 15E-G; Tables 56-62 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 18A-G; and Tables 63-64 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 21G-H.

TABLE 53

Statistical analysis for FIG. 15E

Peak fluorescence changes in GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal

neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiCKAR or S4-ExRaiCKAR

under 100 ng/ml PMA stimulation (n = 10 somata, 20 proximal neurites, and 20 distal neurites

from 10 neurons from 4 cultures for ExRaiCKAR; n = 11 somata, 22 proximal neurites, and 22

distal neurites from 11 neurons from 4 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR). Two-way analysis of

variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

% of total
P
P value

Source of Variation
variation
value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
14.39
<.001
***
Yes

Subcellular location
2.360
.226
ns
No

Molecule
0.2092
.606
ns
No

ANOVA table
SS
DF
MS
F (DFn,
P value

(Type III)

DFd)

Interaction
1417
2
708.6
F (2, 104) =
P = .001

9.182

Subcellular location
232.5
2
116.3
F (2, 104) =
P = .226

1.506

Molecule
20.61
1
20.61
F (1, 104) =
P = .606

0.2670

Residual
8025
104
77.17

Difference between

column means

Predicted (LS) mean of
26.36

ExRaiCKAR

Predicted (LS) mean of
27.28

S4-ExRaiCKAR

Difference between
−0.9163

predicted means

SE of difference
1.773

95% CI of difference
−4.432 to 2.600

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni's
Predicted
95.00%

multiple
(LS) mean
CI of

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

ExRaiCKAR-S4-

ExRaiCKAR

Soma
8.481
−0.6718
No
ns
.079

to 17.63

Proximal neurite
−0.5930
−7.065 to
No
ns
>.999

5.879

Distal neurite
−10.64
−17.11 to
Yes
***
<.001

−4.165

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
SE

(LS)
(LS)
(LS) mean
of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

ExRaiCKAR-S4-

ExRaiCKAR

Soma
33.30
24.82
8.481
3.761
10
12
2.255
104.0

Proximal neurite
24.77
25.36
−0.5930
2.660
20
24
0.2230
104.0

Distal neurite
21.01
31.65
−10.64
2.660
20
24
3.999
104.0

TABLE 54

Statistical analysis for FIG. 15F

Signal-to-noise ratio in the GFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal

neurites (of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing ExRaiCKAR or S4-ExRaiCKAR

under 100 ng/ml PMA stimulation (n = 10 somata, 20 proximal neurites, and 20 distal neurites

from 10 neurons from 4 cultures for ExRaiCKAR; n = 11 somata, 22 proximal neurites, and 22

distal neurites from 11 neurons from 4 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR). Two-way analysis of

variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

% of total
P
P value

Source of Variation
variation
value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
1.398
.399
ns
No

Subcellular location
16.00
<.001
***
Yes

Molecule
4.137
.021
*
Yes

ANOVA table
SS
DF
MS
F (DFn,
P value

(Type III)

DFd)

Interaction
88.21
2
44.10
F (2, 104) =
P = .399

0.9258

Subcellular location
1009
2
504.7
F (2, 104) =
P = .001

10.60

Molecule
261.1
1
261.1
F (1, 104) =
P = .021

5.481

Residual
4954
104
47.64

Difference between

column means

Predicted (LS) mean of
10.21

ExRaiCKAR

Predicted (LS) mean of
13.47

S4-ExRaiCKAR

Difference between
−3.261

predicted means

SE of difference
1.393

95% CI of difference
−6.024 to

−0.4988

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni's
Predicted
95.00%

multiple
(LS) mean
CI of

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

ExRaiCKAR-S4-

ExRaiCKAR

Soma
−5.246
−12.44 to
No
ns
.236

1.945

Proximal neurite
−0.7623
−5.847 to
No
ns
>.999

4.323

Distal neurite
−3.776
−8.861 to
No
ns
.221

1.309

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
SE

(LS)
(LS)
(LS) mean
of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

ExRaiCKAR-S4-

ExRaiCKAR

Soma
14.15
19.39
−5.246
2.955
10
12
1.775
104.0

Proximal neurite
9.792
10.55
−0.7623
2.090
20
24
0.3648
104.0

Distal neurite
6.692
10.47
−3.776
2.090
20
24
1.807
104.0

TABLE 55

Statistical analysis for FIG. 15G

Wilcoxon rank sum test of the half rise

time of reported PKC signals at the soma after

100 ng/ml PMA stimulation (n = 10 somata,

20 proximal neurites, and 20 distal neurites

from 10 neurons from 4 cultures for ExRaiCKAR;

n = 11 somata, 22 proximal neurites, and 22

distal neurites from 11 neurons from 4 cultures

for S4-ExRaiCKAR).

P value
0.6923

ranksum
108.5

zval
−0.3957

TABLE 56

Statistical analysis for FIG. 18A (Resting potential)

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test with non-

expressing neurons, labeled as ‘Negative’, as control group. n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures for

Negative; n = 6 neurons from 2 cultures for GCaMP6f; n = 9 neurons from 5 cultures for S1-

GCaMP6f; n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures for S2-cAMPr; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S3-

ExRaiAKAR; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR;

n = 7 neurons from 3 cultures for S2a-cAMPr.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.8238

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
No

Number of groups
7

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
2.879

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
7

Number of values (total)
44

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 6

Alpha 0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value
A-?

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
4.167
No
ns
>0.9999
B
GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
−3.500
No
ns
>0.9999
C
S1-GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
3.917
No
ns
>0.9999
D
S2-cAMPr

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
−1.667
No
ns
>0.9999
E
S3-ExRaiAKAR

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
6.033
No
ns
>0.9999
F
S4-ExRaiCKAR

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
−0.3095
No
ns
>0.9999
G
S2a-cAMPr

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
23.33
19.17
4.167
6
6
0.5634

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
23.33
26.83
−3.500
6
9
0.5184

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
23.33
19.42
3.917
6
6
0.5296

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
23.33
25.00
−1.667
6
5
0.2149

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
23.33
17.30
6.033
6
5
0.7778

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
23.33
23.64
−0.3095
6
7
0.04343

TABLE 57

Statistical analysis for FIG. 18B (Membrane resistance)

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test with non-

expressing neurons, labeled as ‘Negative’, as control group. n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures for

Negative; n = 6 neurons from 2 cultures for GCaMP6f; n = 9 neurons from 5 cultures for S1-

GCaMP6f; n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures for S2-cAMPr; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S3-

ExRaiAKAR; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR; n = 7 neurons

from 3 cultures for S2a-cAMPr.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.0082

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
**

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
Yes

Number of groups
7

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
17.31

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
7

Number of values (total)
44

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 6

Alpha 0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value
A-?

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
0.6667
No
ns
>0.9999
B
GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
2.722
No
ns
>0.9999
C
S1-GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
1.667
No
ns
>0.9999
D
S2-cAMPr

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
17.83
No
ns
0.1312
E
S3-ExRaiAKAR

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
19.23
No
ns
0.0805
F
S4-ExRaiCKAR

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
−4.738
No
ns
>0.9999
G
S2a-cAMPr

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
26.83
26.17
0.6667
6
6
0.08989

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
26.83
24.11
2.722
6
9
0.4021

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
26.83
25.17
1.667
6
6
0.2247

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
26.83
9.000
17.83
6
5
2.293

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
26.83
7.600
19.23
6
5
2.473

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
26.83
31.57
−4.738
6
7
0.6630

TABLE 58

Statistical analysis for FIG. 18C (Membrane capacitance)

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test with non-

expressing neurons, labeled as ‘Negative’, as control group. n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures for

Negative; n = 6 neurons from 2 cultures for GCaMP6f; n = 9 neurons from 5 cultures for S1-

GCaMP6f; n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures for S2-cAMPr; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S3-

ExRaiAKAR; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR; n = 7

neurons from 3 cultures for S2a-cAMPr.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.6134

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
No

Number of groups
7

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
4.470

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
7

Number of values (total)
44

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 6

Alpha 0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value
A-?

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
−7.833
No
ns
>0.9999
B
GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
−1.750
No
ns
>0.9999
C
S1-GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
−6.917
No
ns
>0.9999
D
S2-cAMPr

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
−6.650
No
ns
>0.9999
E
S3-ExRaiAKAR

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
−11.15
No
ns
0.9084
F
S4-ExRaiCKAR

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
0.8929
No
ns
>0.9999
G
S2a-cAMPr

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
18.25
26.08
−7.833
6
6
1.057

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
18.25
20.00
−1.750
6
9
0.2587

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
18.25
25.17
−6.917
6
6
0.9334

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
18.25
24.90
−6.650
6
5
0.8556

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
18.25
29.40
−11.15
6
5
1.435

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
18.25
17.36
0.8929
6
7
0.1250

TABLE 59

Statistical analysis for FIG. 18D (Holding current while held at −65 mV)

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test with non-

expressing neurons, labeled as ‘Negative’, as control group. n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures for

Negative; n = 6 neurons from 2 cultures for GCaMP6f; n = 9 neurons from 5 cultures for S1-

GCaMP6f; n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures for S2-cAMPr; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S3-

ExRaiAKAR; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR; n = 7

neurons from 3 cultures for S2a-cAMPr.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.7989

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
No

Number of groups
7

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
3.079

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
7

Number of values (total)
44

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 6

Alpha 0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value
A-?

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
4.083
No
ns
>0.9999
B
GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
6.861
No
ns
>0.9999
C
S1-GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
6.833
No
ns
>0.9999
D
S2-cAMPr

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
11.35
No
ns
0.8654
E
S3-ExRaiAKAR

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
2.050
No
ns
>0.9999
F
S4-ExRaiCKAR

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
2.107
No
ns
>0.9999
G
S2a-cAMPr

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
27.25
23.17
4.083
6
6
0.5510

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
27.25
20.39
6.861
6
9
1.014

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
27.25
20.42
6.833
6
6
0.9220

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
27.25
15.90
11.35
6
5
1.460

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
27.25
25.20
2.050
6
5
0.2637

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
27.25
25.14
2.107
6
7
0.2951

TABLE 60

Statistical analysis for FIG. 18E (Action potential amplitude)

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test with non-

expressing neurons, labeled as ‘Negative’, as control group. n = 6 neurons from 2 cultures for

Negative; n = 6 neurons from 2 cultures for GCaMP6f; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S1-

GCaMP6f; n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures for S2-cAMPr; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S3-

ExRaiAKAR; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR; n = 5

neurons from 3 cultures for S2a-cAMPr.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.0343

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
*

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
Yes

Number of groups
7

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
13.61

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
7

Number of values (total)
38

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 6

Alpha 0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value
A-?

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
1.500
No
ns
>0.9999
B
GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
9.367
No
ns
0.9835
C
S1-GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
14.00
No
ns
0.1746
D
S2-cAMPr

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
0.9667
No
ns
>0.9999
E
S3-ExRaiAKAR

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
−6.933
No
ns
>0.9999
F
S4-ExRaiCKAR

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
9.667
No
ns
0.9050
G
S2a-cAMPr

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
23.67
22.17
1.500
6
6
0.2338

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
23.67
14.30
9.367
6
5
1.392

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
23.67
9.667
14.00
6
6
2.182

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
23.67
22.70
0.9667
6
5
0.1437

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
23.67
30.60
−6.933
6
5
1.030

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
23.67
14.00
9.667
6
5
1.437

TABLE 61

Statistical analysis for FIG. 18F (Action potential width)

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test with non-

expressing neurons, labeled as ‘Negative’, as control group. n = 6 neurons from 2 cultures for

Negative; n = 6 neurons from 2 cultures for GCaMP6f; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S1-

GCaMP6f; n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures for S2-cAMPr; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S3-

ExRaiAKAR; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR; n = 5

neurons from 3 cultures for S2a-cAMPr.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.5518

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
No

Number of groups
7

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
4.938

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
7

Number of values (total)
38

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 6

Alpha 0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value
A-?

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
5.000
No
ns
>0.9999
B
GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
2.550
No
ns
>0.9999
C
S1-GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
−3.583
No
ns
>0.9999
D
S2-cAMPr

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
8.350
No
ns
>0.9999
E
S3-ExRaiAKAR

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
7.750
No
ns
>0.9999
F
S4-ExRaiCKAR

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
4.350
No
ns
>0.9999
G
S2a-cAMPr

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
22.75
17.75
5.000
6
6
0.7845

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
22.75
20.20
2.550
6
5
0.3815

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
22.75
26.33
−3.583
6
6
0.5623

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
22.75
14.40
8.350
6
5
1.249

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
22.75
15.00
7.750
6
5
1.159

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
22.75
18.40
4.350
6
5
0.6508

TABLE 62

Statistical analysis for FIG. 18G (Action potential threshold)

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by post-hoc test via Dunn's test with non-

expressing neurons, labeled as ‘Negative’, as control group. n = 6 neurons from 2 cultures for

Negative; n = 6 neurons from 2 cultures for GCaMP6f; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S1-

GCaMP6f; n = 6 neurons from 4 cultures for S2-cAMPr; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S3-

ExRaiAKAR; n = 5 neurons from 3 cultures for S4-ExRaiCKAR; n = 5

neurons from 3 cultures for S2a-cAMPr.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.9034

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
No

Number of groups
7

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
2.170

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
7

Number of values (total)
38

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 6

Alpha 0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value
A-?

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
5.833
No
ns
>0.9999
B
GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
−0.6000
No
ns
>0.9999
C
S1-GCaMP6f

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
−2.500
No
ns
>0.9999
D
S2-cAMPr

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
3.000
No
ns
>0.9999
E
S3-ExRaiAKAR

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
3.000
No
ns
>0.9999
F
S4-ExRaiCKAR

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
2.000
No
ns
>0.9999
G
S2a-cAMPr

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

Negative vs. GCaMP6f
21.00
15.17
5.833
6
6
0.9092

Negative vs. S1-GCaMP6f
21.00
21.60
−0.6000
6
5
0.08916

Negative vs. S2-cAMPr
21.00
23.50
−2.500
6
6
0.3896

Negative vs. S3-ExRaiAKAR
21.00
18.00
3.000
6
5
0.4458

Negative vs. S4-ExRaiCKAR
21.00
18.00
3.000
6
5
0.4458

Negative vs. S2a-cAMPr
21.00
19.00
2.000
6
5
0.2972

TABLE 63

Statistical analysis for FIG. 21G

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the degree of clustering followed by post-hoc test

via Dunn's test with the degree of clustering at ‘100 ng’ transfection as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.2777

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
No

Number of groups
5

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
5.095

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
44

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 4

Alpha 0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
8.519
No
ns
0.3990
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
13.76
No
ns
0.1393
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
6.466
No
ns
>0.9999
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
7.291
No
ns
>0.9999
E
1000 ng

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
29.09
20.57
8.519
11
14
1.646

100 ng vs. 500 ng
29.09
15.33
13.76
11
6
2.110

100 ng vs. 750 ng
29.09
22.63
6.466
11
8
1.083

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
29.09
21.80
7.291
11
5
1.052

TABLE 64

Statistical analysis for FIG. 21H

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance of the degree of clustering followed by post-hoc test

via Dunn's test with the degree of clustering at ‘100 ng’ transfection as control group.

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.8805

Exact or approximate P value?
Approximate

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P <0.05)?
No

Number of groups
5

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
1.185

Data summary

Number of treatments (columns)
5

Number of values (total)
44

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 4

Alpha 0.05

Dunn's multiple
Mean

Adjusted

comparisons test
rank diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value
A-?

100 ng vs. 250 ng
−3.006
No
ns
>0.9999
B
250 ng

100 ng vs. 500 ng
−1.030
No
ns
>0.9999
C
500 ng

100 ng vs. 750 ng
−0.1136
No
ns
>0.9999
D
750 ng

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
−6.564
No
ns
>0.9999
E
1000 ng

Mean
Mean
Mean

Test details
rank 1
rank 2
rank diff.
n1
n2
Z

100 ng vs. 250 ng
20.64
23.64
−3.006
11
14
0.5809

100 ng vs. 500 ng
20.64
21.67
−1.030
11
6
0.1580

100 ng vs. 750 ng
20.64
20.75
−0.1136
11
8
0.01904

100 ng vs. 1000 ng
20.64
27.20
−6.564
11
5
0.9474

When S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and S4-ExRaiCKAR were co-expressed in neurons, all 4 kinds of puncta were observed (FIG. 1514) of, as determined by post-fixation immunostaining (FIG. 15K-L, top). To facilitate performing the immunostaining in a multiplexed way, samples were first subjected to tissue expansion protocols (Chen, Tillberg and Boyden, 2015; Tillberg et al., 2016; Asano et al., 2018), in which target molecules in cells or tissues are covalently anchored into an expandable hydrogel network; then, samples undergo mechanical homogenization by denaturing treatments (Bodenmiller, 2016; Ku et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2018). Then, conventional immunostaining was performed with commercially available primary and secondary antibodies with repeated rounds of immunostaining and antibody stripping for clearance (by applying the same denaturing solution at lower temperatures), allowing visualization of more targets than spectrally available.

To show functionality of all 4 sensors, neurons were challenged with two drugs, 50 μM forskolin (which as described elsewhere herein modulates cAMP, Ca²⁺, and PKA) for 3 minutes, followed after a break of 3 minutes by 100 ng/mL phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA), a drug known to drive PKC activation, for 3 minutes, and observed responses of S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and S4-ExRaiCKAR to these interventions (FIG. 15K-L, bottom, representative traces; FIG. 15M-N, population data). As expected, forskolin induced cAMP, Ca²⁺, and PKA activities similar to previous results and PMA-induced increases of PKC activity. Simultaneous expression of four reporters resulted in many puncta at the soma and along neurites (FIG. 15O), with good lack of colocalization of multiple reporters within individual puncta (FIG. 15P; puncta containing multiple reporters were not analyzed for their dynamics). Puncta were comparable in size (FIG. 15Q, left) and punctum-punctum distance (FIG. 15Q, right) when expressed together, as when expressed alone.

Spatial and Spectral Multiplexing

Spatial multiplexing does not replace spectral multiplexing, but instead is complementary. To investigate the compatibility of spatial and spectral multiplexing techniques for even greater multiplexing capabilities, spatial and spectral multiplexing were combined by sharing one protein scaffold among multiple reporters that emitted different colors. The S2 scaffold, used in Example 1 for cAMPr, was adapted for a red fluorescent protein (RFP)-based reporter for extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), RAB-EKARev (Ding et al., 2015; Mehta et al., 2018), resulting in S2-RAB_EKARev (FIG. 16A). S2-RAB_EKARev produced bright puncta (FIG. 16B-C), and exhibited similar transients to those of conventional RAB-EKARev (FIG. 16D), with comparable amplitude (FIG. 16E, Table 65), signal-to-noise ratio (FIG. 16F, Table 66), and rise time (FIG. 16G, Table 67), when elicited by (S)-3,5-Dihydroxyphenylglycine (DHPG), an agonist of group I metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluR1 and mGluR5) shown to drive ERK activity in cultured rat neurons (Mao et al., 2005). When S1-GCaMP6f, S2-cAMPr, S3-ExRaiAKAR, S4-ExRaiCKAR, and S2-RAB_EKARev were co-expressed in mouse hippocampal neurons, they formed puncta (FIG. 16H) that could be identified by post-fixation immunostaining (FIG. 16I). S2-cAMPr and S2-RAB_EKARev co-occupied the same puncta, but could be distinguished by their different spectra. When imaged in the GFP and RFP channels after stimulation with 100 μM DHPG for 3 minutes, followed by a 3-minute break, then 50 μM forskolin for 3 minutes, in order to see responses from all 5 indicators, signals reported by all 5 indicators could be identified (FIG. 16J; FIG. 16K population data). DHPG produced increases in cAMP, PKA, PKC, and ERK levels, as expected from previous studies (Mironov et al., 2009; Ménard and Quirion, 2012; Wang and Zhuo, 2012; Careaga et al., 2014; Partridge et al., 2014). In some neurons, DHPG produced Ca²⁺ increased, but in one neuron it did not. Forskolin, delivered after DHPG washout, appeared not to have much effect, perhaps because DHPG had already saturated the signaling network before forskolin administration. Tables 65-67 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 16E-G.

TABLE 65

Statistical analysis for FIG. 16E

Peak fluorescence changes in RFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal

neurites of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing RAB_EKARev or S2-

RAB_EKARev under 100 μM DHPG stimulation (n = 5 somata, 10 proximal neurites, and 10

distal neurites from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for RAB_EKARev; n = 5 somata, 10 proximal

neurites, and 10 distal neurites from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for S2-RAB_EKARev). Two-way

analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

Source of Variation
% of total

P value

variation
P value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
1.693
.660
ns
No

Subcellular location
1.725
.655
ns
No

Molecule
7.315
.064
ns
No

ANOVA table
SS
DF
MS
F (DFn,
P value

(Type III)

DFd)

Interaction
101.8
2
50.90
F (2, 44) =
P = .660

0.4187

Subcellular location
103.7
2
51.87
F (2, 44) =
P = .655

0.4267

Molecule
439.9
1
439.9
F (1, 44) =
P = .064

3.619

Residual
5349
44
121.6

Difference between column

means

Predicted (LS) mean of
14.00

RAB_EKARev

Predicted (LS) mean of S2-
20.25

RAB_EKARev

Difference between
−6.253

predicted means

SE of difference
3.287

95% CI of difference
−12.88 to

0.3718

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni's
Predicted
95.00%

multiple
(LS) mean
CI of

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

RAB_EKARev-S2-

RAB_EKARev

Soma
−7.209
−24.57 to
No
ns
.921

10.15

Proximal neurite
−8.901
−21.17 to
No
ns
.234

3.372

Distal neurite
−2.650
−14.92 to
No
ns
>.999

9.623

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
SE

(LS)
(LS)
(LS) mean
of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

RAB_EKARev-S2-

RAB_EKARev

Soma
11.68
18.88
−7.209
6.973
5
5
1.034
44.00

Proximal neurite
14.63
23.53
−8.901
4.931
10
10
1.805
44.00

Distal neurite
15.69
18.34
−2.650
4.931
10
10
0.5374
44.00

TABLE 66

Statistical analysis for FIG. 6F

Signal-to-noise ratio in the RFP channel at the soma, proximal neurites, and distal

neurites (of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons expressing RAB_EKARev or S2-

RAB_EKARev under 100 μM DHPG stimulation (n = 5 somata, 10 proximal neurites, and 10

distal neurites from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for RAB EKARev; n = 5 somata, 10 proximal

neurites, and 10 distal neurites from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for S2-RAB_EKARev). Two-

way analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons test.

Two-way ANOVA Ordinary

Alpha 0.05

% of total
P
P value

Source of Variation
variation
value
summary
Significant?

Interaction
1.603
.618
ns
No

Subcellular location
24.38
.002
**
Yes

Molecule
2.116
.263
ns
No

ANOVA table
SS
DF
MS
F (DFn,
P value

(Type III)

DFd)

Interaction
58.76
2
29.38
F (2, 44) =
P = .618

0.4872

Subcellular location
893.7
2
446.9
F (2, 44) =
P = .002

7.409

Molecule
77.59
1
77.59
F (1, 44) =
P = .263

1.287

Residual
2654
44
60.31

Difference between

column means

Predicted (LS) mean of
14.26

RAB_EKARev

Predicted (LS) mean of S2-
11.64

RAB_EKARev

Difference between predicted
2.626

means

SE of difference
2.315

95% CI of difference
−2.040 to 7.292

Number of families 1

Number of comparisons per family 3

Alpha 0.05

Bonferroni's
Predicted
95.00%

multiple
(LS) mean
CI of

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

RAB_EKARev-S2-

RAB_EKARev

Soma
4.765
−7.460 to
No
ns
>.999

16.99

Proximal neurite
3.511
−5.134 to
No
ns
.953

12.15

Distal neurite
−0.3970
−9.041 to
No
ns
>.999

8.247

Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
SE

(LS)
(LS)
(LS) mean
of

Test details
mean 1
mean 2
diff.
diff.
N1
N2
t
DF

RAB_EKARev-S2-

RAB_EKARev

Soma
22.31
17.55
4.765
4.912
5
5
0.9702
44.00

Proximal neurite
11.87
8.357
3.511
3.473
10
10
1.011
44.00

Distal neurite
8.613
9.010
−0.3970
3.473
10
10
0.1143
44.00

TABLE 67

Statistical analysis for FIG. 16G

Wilcoxon rank sum test of the half rise

time of reported ERK signals at the soma after

100 μM DHPG stimulation (n = 5 somata,

10 proximal neurites, and 10 distal neurites

from 5 neurons from 5 cultures for RAB_EKARev;

n = 5 somata, 10 proximal neurites, and 10

distal neurites from 5 neurons from 5 cultures

for S2-RAB_EKARev).

P value
0.5476

ranksum
31

This combination of spatial and spectral multiplexing could enable the readout of SiRI reporter identity without requiring immunostaining: for example, in cells co-expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and S3-RAB_EKARev (generated by replacing ExRaiAKAR in S3-ExRaiAKAR with RAB_EKARev), S3-ExRaiAKAR and S3-RAB_EKARev co-clustered into puncta because they shared the same protein scaffold (FIG. 29), and could be identified as the only puncta sharing both green and red fluorescence, with the remaining purely green puncta therefore identified as the S1-GCaMP6f puncta.

Example 4. Spatially Multiplexed Imaging of Two GFP-Based Sensors During Long-Term Potentiation

Spatially multiplexed imaging of Ca²⁺ and PKA activities via two GFP-based sensors was performed during long-term potentiation to examine whether the methods described in the preceding Examples could also be used over longer time periods, and whether signals within the Ca²⁺/cAMP/PKA signal transduction network could be measured in an intact biological preparation.

Materials and Methods
In Utero Electroporation

Embryonic day (E) 15.5 timed-pregnant female Swiss Webster (Taconic Biosciences, Rensselaer, N.Y.) mice were deeply anaesthetized with 2% isoflurane. Uterine horns were exposed and periodically rinsed with warm sterile PBS. Plasmid DNA was injected into the lateral ventricle of one cerebral hemisphere of an embryo. Final plasmid DNA concentration was 4.5 μg/μl in water (DNA mass ratio of pAAV-CAG-S1-GCaMP6f, pAAV-CAG-S3-ExRaiAKAR, and pAAV-CAG-mRuby3-6×FLAG at 1:2:2). Fast Green FCF dye (Millipore Sigma, Burlington, Mass.) was added to the DNA mixture to visualize the mixture during DNA injection. Five voltage pulses (50 V, 50 ms duration, 1 Hz) were delivered two times using 5-mm round plate electrodes (Harvard Apparatus, Holliston, Mass.), with the cathode placed on top of the skull to target the hippocampus. Electroporated embryos were placed back into the dam, and allowed to mature for delivery.

Electrophysiology and Imaging of Acute Brain Slice

3 to 4 week-old mice expressing SiRIs and miRFP (from in utero electroporation) were anesthetized with isoflurane and decapitated; the brains were taken out and placed in ice-cold choline-based cutting solution containing the following: 110 mM choline chloride, 7 mM MgCl₂, 2.5 mM KCl, 0.5 mM CaCl₂, 1.25 mM NaHPO₄, 25 mM NaHCO₃, 25 mM D-glucose, 11.6 mM ascorbic acid, and 3.1 mM pyruvic acid to a final pH of 7.75. The sagittal brain slices containing the hippocampus (300 μm) were cut in cold choline-based cutting solution with a Compresstome VF-300 (Precisionary Instruments, Natick, Mass.), and transferred to a holding chamber containing ACSF: 124 mM NaCl, 2 mM MgSO₄, 2.5 mM KCl, 2 mM CaCl₂, 1.2 mM NaHPO₄, 24 mM NaHCO₃, 5 mM HEPES, and 12.5 mM D-glucose to a final pH of 7.35, and recovered for 20 minutes at 30-32° C. Slices were subsequently maintained at room temperature until use. The cutting solution, ACSF, and ACSF with 50 μM forskolin added (or ‘forskolin-ACSF’) were constantly bubbled with 95% 02, 5% CO₂. Slices were screened for positive green expression with a hand-held LED and filter.

Individual slices were transferred to a submersion perfusion chamber and continuously perfused with room temperature (23-26° C.) ACSF, constantly bubbled with 95% O2, 5% CO₂, at a 4-5 ml/minute rate. Recording pipettes (4-6MΩ resistance) were pulled from borosilicate glass (Warner Instruments, Holliston, Mass.) and filled with ACSF. fEPSP recordings were made with a microelectrode amplifier (Multiclamp 700B, Molecular Devices, San Jose, Calif.). Signals were low-pass-filtered at 3 kHz and sampled at 20 kHz with a Digidata 1550B plus Humsilencer (Molecular Devices, San Jose, Calif.), and data were stored on a computer for subsequent offline analysis. In fEPSP recordings, recording pipettes were placed in the stratum radiatum of CA1. All evoked responses were elicited by delivering constant current pulses (duration 0.2 millisecond, 0.05 Hz) through a bipolar tungsten stimulating electrode placed into the mid stratum radiatum to activate Schaffer collateral/commissural fibers. In LTP experiments, stimulation intensity was adjusted to about 50% of the threshold for maximum fEPSPs and maintained at that level throughout all the recordings. Chemical LTP was induced by perfusing forskolin-ACSF, instead of ACSF, to the slice for 15 minutes, after which the perfusion was switched back to ACSF. fEPSP was recorded every 3 minutes, from 12 minutes before the onset of forskolin-ACSF perfusion to 57 minutes after the onset of forskolin-ACSF perfusion, in 24 fEPSP recordings. fEPSP slopes were measured by calculating the slopes between 10-60% of the fEPSP rising phase.

Acute brain slice neuron imaging was performed on a spinning disk confocal microscope (a Yokogawa CSU-W1 Confocal Scanner Unit on a Nikon Eclipse Ti microscope) equipped with a 40×1.15 NA water immersion objective (Nikon MRD77410) and a Zyla PLUS 4.2 Megapixel camera controlled by NIS-Elements AR software. Individual slices were transferred to a submersion perfusion chamber and continuously perfused with room temperature (23-26° C.) ACSF, constantly bubbled with 95% O2, 5% CO₂, at a 4-5 ml/minute rate.

A volume containing the soma, apical dendrites, and basal dendrites of CA1 pyramidal neurons in the slice were imaged under the GFP (for SiRIs) and RFP (for the morphological marker mRuby3-FLAG) channels, and then volumetric time-lapse imaging (1.5-2.0 μm per Z step) was performed in the GFP emission channel (30 seconds per volume; each X-Y plane in the volume was captured twice, once under 405 nm excitation and the other under 488 nm excitation). Chemical stimulation was by perfusing forskolin-ACSF, instead of ACSF, to the slice for 15 minutes, after which the perfusion was switched back to ACSF. Time-lapse imaging started 5 minutes before the onset of forskolin-ACSF perfusion and ended 60 minutes after the onset of forskolin-ACSF perfusion, in total 65 minutes.

For the CA1 pyramidal neurons recorded from acute mouse brain slice, apical dendrites and basal dendrites were identified by cell morphology. For ExRaiAKAR or ExRaiCKAR, the time courses of the fluorescence intensity in the GFP emission channel under 488 nm and 405 nm excitations were measured as F_488 and F_405, respectively.

Significant photobleaching was observed in the fluorescence time courses measured from cAMPr and RAB_EKARev in recordings longer than 5 minutes in cultured neurons, as well as those measured from GCaMP6f and ExRaiAKAR in the 65-minute-long recordings in slice. Photobleaching correction was performed on these fluorescence time courses as described herein. Fluorescence time courses during the pre-stimulation baseline periods measured from cAMPr or RAB_EKARev were fitted to exponential decay functions, and the exponential decay components were then removed from the full-length time courses. Fluorescence time courses during the pre-stimulation baseline periods measured from GCaMP6f in the 65-minute-long recordings in slice were fitted to a bi-exponential decay function, and the bi-exponential decay components were then removed from the full-length time courses. The fluorescence time courses during the pre-stimulation baseline periods measured from ExRaiAKAR in the 65-minute-long recordings in slice under 488 nm excitation, i.e. F_488_baseline, were fitted to a bi-exponential decay function, and the bi-exponential decay components were then removed from the full-length time courses. The fluorescence time courses during the pre-stimulation baseline periods measured from ExRaiAKAR in slice under 405 nm excitation, i.e. F_405_baseline, were fitted to a bi-exponential decay function with the time constants fixed to those obtained from the curve fitting of the corresponding F_488_baseline time courses (so that the resultant time constants from the bi-exponential fitting were identical between each F_488_baseline/F_405_baseline pair), and the resulted bi-exponential decay components were then removed from the full-length time courses.

To calculate the dF/F0 for GCaMP6f, cAMPr, or RAB_EKARev expressing HeLa cells or neurons, the baseline fluorescence, F0, was first calculated as the average net fluorescence during the pre-stimulation baseline period. dF/F0 was then calculated as dF/F0=(F−F0)/F0. To calculate the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) the maximum dF/F0 was divided by the standard deviation of the net fluorescence during the pre-stimulation baseline period.

To calculate the dR/R0 for ExRaiAKAR or ExRaiCKAR expressing HeLa cells or neurons, the baseline fluorescence, F0_488 and F0_405, was first calculated as the average net fluorescence during the pre-stimulation baseline period in the GFP emission channel under 488 nm and 405 nm excitations, respectively. dR/R0 was then calculated as dR/R0=(F_488/F_405)/(F0_488/F0_405)−1. To calculate the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) the maximum dF/F0 was divided by the standard deviation of the net fluorescence during the pre-stimulation baseline period.

The slice was then fixed in TissuePrep buffered 10% formalin for 15 minutes at room temperature (RT) followed by incubation in 100 mM glycine in 1×PBS for 15-30 minutes at RT and three washes in 1×PBS. The slice was then stained against the epitope tags and morphological markers.

Additional materials and methods were as described in Examples 1-3 and in Experiments, Results, and Discussion section.

Experiments, Results, and Discussion

S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and the cell morphological marker mRuby3 were expressed in pyramidal neurons in mouse hippocampal area CA1 by targeted in utero electroporation, to examine the relationship between these signals over timescales of ˜1 hour. S1-GCaMP6f (green) and S3-ExRaiAKAR (green) SiRIs formed puncta (FIG. 32A; FIG. 14A-B) which were distributed in somata as well as in neurites of hippocampal CA1 pyramdial neurons (FIG. 14B). SiRI expression in the hippocampus and cortex of mice for 5-7 weeks did not alter markers of cellular and synaptic health, including the neuronal nucleus marker NeuN, the apoptotic marker cleaved caspase-3, the astrocyte marker GFAP, the microglial marker Iba1, the synaptic marker Synaptophysin, and the DNA damage marker γH2AX (FIG. 30, Tables 68-73). The reporter within each punctum was identified with post-fixation immunostaining (FIG. 14C, close-up views; FIG. 31A, full-neuron views); plentiful puncta were observed (FIG. 14D) and >90% of the S1-GCaMP6f or S3-ExRaiAKAR puncta did not colocalize with reporters of the other kind (FIG. 14E; puncta containing multiple reporters were not analyzed in the following dynamics studies). SiRI puncta in brain slices were comparable in size to those in neuron culture (FIG. 14F, left), as were punctum-punctum distances (FIG. 14F, right). Tables 68-73 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 30B-G.

TABLE 68

Statistical analysis for FIG. 30B

The staining intensities of NeuN

(neuronal nuclei marker) at the cortex. Wilcoxon rank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
0.6991

ranksum
36

The staining intensities of NeuN

(neuronal nuclei marker) at CA1. Wilcoxon rank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
0.8182

ranksum
41

TABLE 69

Statistical analysis for FIG. 30C

The staining intensities of cleaved caspase-3

(apoptotic marker) at the cortex. Wilcoxonrank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
0.4848

ranksum
44

The staining intensities of cleaved caspase-3

(apoptotic marker) at CA1. Wilcoxon rank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
0.5887

ranksum
43

TABLE 70

Statistical analysis for FIG. 30D

The staining intensities of GFAP

(astrocyte marker) at the cortex. Wilcoxon rank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
0.5887

ranksum
35

The staining intensities of GFAP

(astrocyte marker) at CA1. Wilcoxon rank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
1

ranksum
39

TABLE 71

Statistical analysis for FIG. 30E

The staining intensities of Iba1

(microglial marker) at the cortex. Wilcoxon rank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
0.8182

ranksum
37

The staining intensities of Iba1

(microglial marker) at CA1. Wilcoxon rank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
0.8182

ranksum
41

TABLE 72

Statistical analysis for FIG. 30F

The staining intensities of synaptophysin

(synaptic marker) at the cortex. Wilcoxon rank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
0.9372

ranksum
38

The staining intensities of synaptophysin

(synaptic marker) at CA1. Wilcoxon rank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
0.4848

ranksum
34

TABLE 73

Statistical analysis for FIG. 30G

The staining intensities of γH2AX

(DNA damage marker) at the cortex. Wilcoxon rank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
0.9372

ranksum
38

The staining intensities of γH2AX

(DNA damage marker) at CA1. Wilcoxon rank sum

test; n = 6 fields of view from 3 mice in the

injected hemisphere; n = 6 fields of view from

3 mice in the non-injected hemisphere.

P value
0.5887

ranksum
43

Volumetric imaging of SiRIs was performed in in 14 hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons in acute brain slices before, during, and after a 15 minute administration of 50 forskolin (FIG. 31B). The acute brain slices were kept in a perfusion chamber with continuous flow of carbonated aCSF solution, and were continuously and volumetrically imaged at the GFP channel in the CA1 region for 1 hour under 40× objective on a spinning disk confocal microscope. In the middle of the imaging, carbonated aCSF solution containing 50 μM forskolin was perfused in the perfusion chamber for 15 minutes to induce long-term potentiation (LTP) in the hippocampus, after which the solution was switched back to carbonated aCSF solution without forskolin. Reporter types were identified by post hoc immunostaining. Ca²⁺ and PKA activities at the soma, apical neurites, and basal neurites of CA1 pyramidal neurons were recorded before, during, and after forskolin application (FIG. 32F, FIG. 14G, representative responses from a single neuron; FIG. 32G, averaged response from 12 neurons from 6 slices from 3 mice; FIG. 1411, average response from all recorded neurons; responses at basal dendrites were sampled at locations 10-40 μm away from the soma; responses at apical dendrites were sampled at locations 30-100 μm away from the soma). Forskolin-induced LTP were confirmed by separate electrophysiology experiments in the mice expressing S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and mRuby3 (FIG. 32D-E).

At a population level, neurons exhibited a Ca²⁺ increase during the forskolin administration period, which decayed after forskolin removal, accompanied by a ramp up in PKA activity that was more sustained similar to the cultured neuron experiments of FIG. 13. In contrast to the cultured neuron studies, however, prominent Ca²⁺ oscillations were not observed within individual cells. However, some neurons had immediate Ca²⁺ increases (i.e., within 1 minute of the onset of forskolin stimulation, FIG. 14J), whereas others had delayed Ca²⁺ responses (i.e., starting 3-15 minutes after the onset of forskolin stimulation, FIG. 14I; one neuron did not have a Ca²⁺ response above baseline at all (>5% dF/F0) and one neuron had spontaneous Ca²⁺ activity before forskolin stimulation, and those two neurons were not analyzed further) at the cell body, reminiscent of the short-latency versus long-latency responses observed in cultured neurons as described in Examples 2-3. The delayed Ca²⁺ response neurons had latencies 12 minutes longer (880% longer) than did immediate Ca²⁺ response neurons (FIG. 14K, Table 74). Analogous to the cultured-neuron case, neurons with immediate Ca²⁺ responses had significantly higher peak Ca²⁺ increases within the first half of the forskolin stimulation period than did neurons with delayed Ca²⁺ responses (FIG. 14K, Table 74), whereas the peak Ca²⁺ increased within a similar time period after the end of forskolin stimulation and the peak Ca²⁺ increased over the entire experimental timecourse were similar between the two groups (FIG. 14K, Table 74). These variations may have resulted from the presence of different kinds, or amounts, of signal transduction machinery that connect cAMP signals to Ca²⁺ signals.

Next, experiments were performed to determine whether neurons with immediate versus delayed Ca²⁺ signals had different PKA outputs from this signaling network. Neurons with immediate Ca²⁺ increases had PKA responses that were faster, and that achieved higher ultimate magnitudes, than those of neurons with delayed Ca²⁺ responses (FIG. 14L, Table 75). Furthermore, neurons that had immediate Ca²⁺ increases had enduring PKA activation, lasting for the entire hour of monitoring, whereas neurons with delayed Ca²⁺ increases had their PKA activity drop to baseline within 30 minutes (FIG. 14L, Table 75). These results in brain slices parallel the results in cultured neurons in Examples 2-3: in both cases, neurons with shorter latency Ca²⁺ responses exhibited faster, and larger, PKA signals than did neurons with longer latency Ca²⁺ responses. It is the simultaneous imaging of Ca²⁺ and PKA that enables such relationships between Ca²⁺ and PKA to be derived; such relationships are not apparent if these signals are inspected only after they are averaged across cell populations and then compared (FIG. 14H). These different Ca²⁺-PKA relationships may highlight different cellular states that differently couple cAMP to Ca²⁺, or that differently couple these signals to PKA output.

Responses in apical and basal dendrites (identified based on morphology) were then analyzed under forskolin stimulation. As at the soma, some dendrites exhibited immediate Ca²⁺ responses, while others exhibited delayed responses. Some also exhibited spontaneous Ca²⁺ activities before forskolin stimulation. However, analysis of PKA rise slope, ultimate amplitude, and duration of signaling showed no clear relationship to the timing of the Ca²⁺ signals (FIG. 31C-F, Tables 76-78), either at sites along the apical dendrites (FIG. 31C, 31E) or basal dendrites (FIG. 31D, 31F), in contrast to the cultured neuron experiments described elsewhere herein, where dendritic conclusions paralleled somatic conclusions. Analysis of the correlations between Ca²⁺ signals across different dendritic sites, or between PKA signals across different dendritic sites, showed much lower site-to-site correlations than in the cultured neuron experiments described elsewhere herein (FIG. 31G). Thus, in brain slices, Ca²⁺-PKA relationships in hippocampal neurons might follow different rules in dendritic compartments than at the cell body, perhaps due to variability in the presence or distribution of factors that modulate this coupling at different locations within neurons. Tables 74-75 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 14K-L; Tables 76-78 show statistical analyses for FIGS. 31B, E, and F.

TABLE 74

Statistical analysis for FIG. 14K

Ca²⁺ activities at the somata

of CA1 pyramidal neurons with delayed somatic

calcium responses (n = 6 neurons from 5

slices from 3 mice) and those with immediate somatic

calcium response (n = 6 neurons from 2

slices from 2 mice) under 50 μM forskolin

treatment for 15 minutes (over 5 min < t < 20 min).

Wilcoxon rank sum test for somatic Ca²⁺

overall peak response (over t > 5 min;

i.e. from the onset of forskolin

stimulation to the end of recording)

P value
0.2403

ranksum
31

Wilcoxon rank sum test for somatic Ca²⁺

peak response within 8 minutes

after the onset of forskolin

treatment (over 5 min < t < 13 min)

P value
0.0087

ranksum
23

Wilcoxon rank sum test for somatic Ca²⁺

peak response within 8 minutes

after the end of forskolin treatment

(over 20 min < t < 28 min)

P value
0.5887

ranksum
35

Wilcoxon rank sum test for the time

to half rise of somatic Ca²⁺

response (the duration from the onset

of forskolin stimulation to the time

when Ca²⁺ response first reaches half

of the overall peak response)

P value
0.0022

ranksum
57

TABLE 75

Statistical analysis for FIG. 14L

PKA activities at the somata of CA1 pyramidal

neurons with delayed somatic calcium

responses (n = 6 neurons from 5 slices

from 3 mice) and those with immediate somatic

calcium response (n = 6 neurons from 2 slices

from 2 mice) under 50 μM forskolin treatment

for 15 minutes.

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

somatic PKA rise slope

P value
0.0260

ranksum
25

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

somatic PKA peak response

P value
0.0152

ranksum
24

Wilcoxon rank sum test for

duration of somatic PKA activation

P value
0.0043

ranksum
22

TABLE 76

Statistical analysis for FIG. 31B

Wilcoxon rank sum test for fEPSP slopes

before and 45 minutes after the onset of

forskolin treatment (n = 7 experiments

on 7 slices from 5 mice co-expressing

S1-GCaMP6f, S3-ExRaiAKAR, and

mRuby3-6xFLAG).

P value
2.1704e−12

ranksum
630

zval
−7.0231

TABLE 77

Statistical analysis for FIG. 31E

PKA activities at the apical dendrites

among the CA1 pyramidal neurons with delayed

calcium responses (n = 5 neurons from 5

slices from 3 mice), immediate calcium

responses (n = 6 neurons from 2 slices

from 2 mice), and spontaneous calcium

responses (n = 3 neurons from 2 slices

from 2 mice), under 50 μM forskolin

treatment for 15 minutes.

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for

PKA rise slope at the apical dendrites

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.5720

Exact or approximate P value?
Exact

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
1.223

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

Delayed calcium response vs.
−2.048
No
ns
>0.9999

Immediate calcium response

Delayed calcium response vs.
0.6667
No
ns
>0.9999

Early calcium response

Immediate calcium response vs.
2.714
No
ns
0.9017

Early calcium response

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for

PKA peak response at the apical dendrites

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.8364

Exact or approximate P value?
Exact

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
0.3986

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

Delayed calcium response vs.
−0.8095
No
ns
>0.9999

Immediate calcium response

Delayed calcium response vs.
0.8333
No
ns
>0.9999

Early calcium response

Immediate calcium response vs.
1.643
No
ns
>0.9999

Early calcium response

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for duration of

PKA activation at the apical dendrites

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.5806

Exact or approximate P value?
Exact

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
1.139

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

Delayed calcium response vs.
−1.976
No
ns
>0.9999

Immediate calcium response

Delayed calcium response vs.
0.5417
No
ns
>0.9999

Early calcium response

Immediate calcium response vs.
2.518
No
ns
0.9681

Early calcium response

TABLE 78

Statistical analysis for FIG. 31F

PKA activities at the basal dendrites

among the CA1 pyramidal neurons with delayed

calcium responses (n = 5 neurons from 5

slices from 3 mice), immediate calcium

responses (n = 6 neurons from 2 slices

from 2 mice), and spontaneous calcium responses

(n = 3 neurons from 2 slices from 2 mice),

under 50 μM forskolin treatment for 15 minutes.

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for

PKA rise slope at the basal dendrites

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.6107

Exact or approximate P value?
Exact

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
1.067

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

Delayed calcium response vs.
−2.333
No
ns
>0.9999

Immediate calcium response

Delayed calcium response vs.
0.000
No
ns
>0.9999

Early calcium response

Immediate calcium response vs.
2.333
No
ns
>0.9999

Early calcium response

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for

PKA peak response at the basal dendrites

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.6816

Exact or approximate P value?
Exact

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
0.8571

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

Delayed calcium response vs.
−2.500
No
ns
>0.9999

Immediate calcium response

Delayed calcium response vs.
−1.500
No
ns
>0.9999

Early calcium response

Immediate calcium response vs.
1.000
No
ns
>0.9999

Early calcium response

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for duration of

PKA activation at the basal dendrites

Kruskal-Wallis test

P value
0.8288

Exact or approximate P value?
Exact

P value summary
ns

Do the medians vary signif. (P < 0.05)?
No

Number of groups
3

Kruskal-Wallis statistic
0.4231

Dunn's multiple
Mean rank

Adjusted

comparisons test
diff.
Significant?
Summary
P Value

Delayed calcium response vs.
−1.400
No
ns
>0.9999

Immediate calcium response

Delayed calcium response vs.
−1.500
No
ns
>0.9999

Early calcium response

Immediate calcium response vs.
−0.1000
No
ns
>0.9999

Early calcium response

Overview/Discussion Results Examples 1-4

Results of experiments and studies that have been performed, some of which are described herein, demonstrated that it is possible to localize, via engineered RNA and protein scaffolds that are bio-orthogonal to mammalian cells, spectrally similar or even spectrally identical fluorescent reporters of different biological signals at different points in space, safely clustered into bright, stationary puncta (with brightness 100-1000× brighter than the surrounding background) within living cells. This protein architecture, termed a signaling reporter island (SiRI), is very modular—that is, given a desired set of signals to be imaged at once within a single living cell, a set of existing fluorescent indicators may be reliably adapted by fusing each to a different pair of self-assembling peptides, so that each will cluster, stochastically, at a different set of points in space. These puncta end up several microns from each other, so that many different signals may be dynamically imaged within a living cell at the same time, even if they all possess the same fluorescent spectrum. After live imaging of the cell, post hoc reconstruction of sensor identity in fixed cells may proceed via epitope immunostaining, RNA FISH, or other highly multiplexed fixed cell imaging methods. In this way, multiple fluorescent signals may be recorded at different points in space, with minimal crosstalk, in a fashion where the identity of the signal may be clearly defined. SiRIs allow the high multiplexing capacity of fixed cell imaging to be translated to help the live cell imaging case, using the spatial dimension as an asset. Results indicated methods and compositions if the invention could be used for spatially multiplexed imaging to sample physiological signals with 1-2 micron resolution and that such imaging was able to capture the relevant cell biology; see, for example, FIG. 5 where scaffolded versions of GCaMP6f and ICUE3 were able to pick up on signals at different subcellular locations within a cell in a fashion similar to unscaffolded forms of these indicators.

SiRIs are easy to design, with a highly modular architecture—most of the SiRIs designed and tested herein worked well upon initial validation testing, with minimal trial-and-error refinement required. In this way, SiRIs may offer a highly complementary strategy to traditional fluorescent reporter engineering: rather than having to engineer a set of fluorescent reporters with different fluorophores in order to use them simultaneously within the same cell, a nonmodular strategy that often requires significant post-design optimization and sometimes even directed evolution of each reporter (Piatkevich et al., 2018), one could simply create reporters all with a single fluorophore, or utilize existing fluorescent reporters without regard to the fluorophores utilized, and then to modularly attach them to different SiRI peptide pairs, without the need for significant post-design iterative work.

Unlike live cell imaging, where distinguishing different fluorescent reporters on a conventional microscope almost exclusively relies on having different excitation and/or emission spectra for the fluorescent reporters, fixed cell imaging may be highly multiplexed. For example, fluorescent probes that bind to different targets may be washed in and out over many cycles, with some procedures (e.g., serial antibody staining against immunoepitopes (Micheva and Smith, 2007; Murray et al., 2015), serial FISH against RNA sequences (Moffitt et al., 2016; Shah et al., 2017)) enable dozens to even hundreds of distinct biomolecules to be identified. In addition, combinations of immunoepitopes as protein barcodes (Wroblewska et al., 2018) may be used in methods of the invention to tag individual kinds of fluorescent reporters, expanding the number of fluorescent reporters that may be identified in a single round of antibody staining. Here, the high degree of multiplexing of fixed cell imaging technologies has been used and demonstrated to boost the multiplexing capability of live cell imaging technologies.

Important components of the success of this strategy are the findings that the scaffolded reporters of the invention are stationary over timescales appropriate for live cell imaging (else the identity of a given punctum could not be reconstructed), and that the puncta be located distant enough to be resolved by a microscope but close enough to spatially sample the relevant biology. It was observed that the puncta engineered in these studies were spaced typically a few microns from each other, and thus appropriate for cellular imaging and also for subcellular imaging where length scales of a few microns do not matter. In the future, creating a wide diversity of such scaffolds with different kinds of spacing may be used to allow tradeoffs between the number of signals that may be simultaneously observed, and the spatial sampling that is permitted. For a cell with 10,000 resolvable spots, for example, one might have 100 kinds of sensors distributed at each of 100 points, or 10 sensors distributed at each of 1000 points. Reported herein are >10 candidate scaffolds that showed at least some degree of clustering (both RNA-based and protein-based), which enable many different kinds of signals to be observed simultaneously in a single cell. Programmable RNA scaffolds such as the Pumby system (Adamala, Martin-Alarcon and Boyden, 2016), new kinds of engineered protein polyhedra, and the simultaneous use of RNA scaffolds and protein polyhedral systems together in cells that may permit the utility of both, rapidly allow the expansion of this system. Certain embodiments of methods of the invention also include de novo/computationally designed, bio-orthogonal protein motifs (King et al., 2012; Hsia et al., 2016; Huang, Boyken and Baker, 2016; Lai et al., 2016; Garcia-Seisdedos et al., 2017) and RNA motifs (Delebecque et al., 2011). Methods of the invention may also be used in vivo in multiple model organisms of interest in biology, such as C. elegans, zebrafish, Drosophila, and mice, to monitor simultaneous pathways in the cells of an intact organism.

Coupling between Ca²⁺, cAMP, and PKA signals, three signals of immense importance for a large number of normal biological functions, and that go awry in many pathological contexts, was examined herein in cultured hippocampal neurons and in acute mouse hippocampal brain slices. Understanding how these signals relate to each other is complex, because of the many feedforward and feedback connections between these signals. Using neurons of both cultured hippocampus and acute hippocampal slice, experiments described herein investigated how the timing of Ca²⁺ and cAMP signals relate to the amplitude of PKA signals. In summary, neurons that had shorter-latency cAMP and Ca²⁺ responses to forskolin, exhibited stronger PKA activation than neurons with longer-latency cAMP and Ca²⁺ responses, showing how an output signal like PKA may be governed by the properties of the second messengers upstream. In cultured neurons, the neurons with longer-latency Ca²⁺ responses also exhibited transient, even oscillatory, responses, indicated that the interactions within this signal transduction network might generate extremely complex, nonlinear, dynamics with computational consequences for how cells filter, integrate, and combine information towards the generation of precise cellular outputs. Importantly, such relationships between the different components of this signal transduction network could not be derived by observing these signals in separate cells, and then comparing them after averaging.

Spatial multiplexing may be particularly useful for imaging fast cellular dynamics, such as those in neurons, under inexpensive single-camera microscopes with fluorescent sensors that may all be imaged in one shared optical channel (e.g. using all GFP-based sensors), because using methods of the invention, the imaging speed is not limited by the number of cameras available or any mechanical filter switching required to record from multiple channels. By reducing the reliance on spectral multiplexing, methods of the invention may also avoid concerns related to bleedthrough caused by using multiple, spectrally similar fluorescent reporters within the same cell. Spatial multiplexing methods of the invention are also capable of freeing up optical channels for use for other purposes, such as cellular control. For example, the GFP channel may be used to observe cellular activity readout from multiple GFP-based sensors, and then the red channel of the microscope may be utilized to operate red-light driven optogenetic tools (Chuong et al., 2014; Klapoetke et al., 2014).

REFERENCES

Abrams, T. W., Karl, K. A. and Kandel, E. R. (1991) “Biochemical studies of stimulus convergence during classical conditioning in Aplysia: Dual regulation of adenylate cyclase by Ca2+/calmodulin and transmitter,” Journal of Neuroscience. Society for Neuroscience, 11(9), pp. 2655-2665. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.11-09-02655.1991.

Adamala, K. P., Martin-Alarcon, D. A. and Boyden, E. S. (2016) “Programmable RNA-binding protein composed of repeats of a single modular unit,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. National Academy of Sciences, 113(19), pp. E2579-88. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1519368113.

Asano, S. M. et al. (2018) “Expansion Microscopy: Protocols for Imaging Proteins and RNA in Cells and Tissues,” Current Protocols in Cell Biology. John Wiley and Sons Inc., 80(1). doi: 10.1002/cpcb.56.

Averaimo, S. and Nicol, X. (2014) “Intermingled cAMP, cGMP and calcium spatiotemporal dynamics in developing neuronal circuits,” Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience. Frontiers, 8, p. 376. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2014.00376.

Bale, J. B. et al. (2016) “Accurate design of megadalton-scale two-component icosahedral protein complexes,” Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 353(6297), pp. 389-394. doi: 10.1126/science. aaf8818.

Barco, A., Alarcon, J. M. and Kandel, E. R. (2002) “Expression of constitutively active CREB protein facilitates the late phase of long-term potentiation by enhancing synaptic capture,” Cell. Cell Press, 108(5), pp. 689-703. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00657-8.

Belousov, V. V et al. (2006) “Genetically encoded fluorescent indicator for intracellular hydrogen peroxide,” Nature Methods, 3(4), pp. 281-286. doi: 10.1038/nmeth866.

Berg, J., Hung, Y. P. and Yellen, G. (2009) “A genetically encoded fluorescent reporter of ATP:ADP ratio,” Nature Methods. Nature Publishing Group, 6(2), pp. 161-166. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1288.

Bito, H., Deisseroth, K. and Tsien, R. W. (1996) “CREB Phosphorylation and Dephosphorylation: A Ca2+- and Stimulus Duration—Dependent Switch for Hippocampal Gene Expression,” Cell. Cell Press, 87(7), pp. 1203-1214. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81816-4.

Bodenmiller, B. (2016) “Multiplexed Epitope-Based Tissue Imaging for Discovery and Healthcare Applications,” Cell Systems. Cell Press, pp. 225-238. doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2016.03.008.

Borodinsky, L. N. and Spitzer, N. C. (2006) “Second messenger pas de deux: the coordinated dance between calcium and cAMP.,” Science's STKE: signal transduction knowledge environment. American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. pe22-pe22. doi: 10.1126/stke.3362006pe22.

Boyken, S. E. et al. (2016) “De novo design of protein homo-oligomers with modular hydrogen-bond network-mediated specificity,” Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 352(6286), pp. 680-687. doi: 10.1126/science.aad8865.

Boyle, A. L. et al. (2012) “Squaring the Circle in Peptide Assembly: From Fibers to Discrete Nanostructures by de Novo Design,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, 134(37), pp. 15457-15467. doi: 10.1021/ja3053943.

Buxbaum, A. R., Haimovich, G. and Singer, R. H. (2015) “In the right place at the right time: visualizing and understanding mRNA localization,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. Nature Publishing Group, 16(2), pp. 95-109. doi: 10.1038/nrm3918.

Buxbaum, A. R., Wu, B. and Singer, R. H. (2014) “Single β-actin mRNA detection in neurons reveals a mechanism for regulating its translatability.,” Science (New York, N.Y.). American Association for the Advancement of Science, 343(6169), pp. 419-22. doi: 10.1126/science.1242939.

Careaga, M. et al. (2014) “Group I metabotropic glutamate receptor mediated dynamic immune dysfunction in children with fragile X syndrome,” Journal of Neuroinflammation, 11(1), p. 110. doi: 10.1186/1742-2094-11-110.

Chalifoux, J. R. and Carter, A. G. (2010) “GABAB Receptors Modulate NMDA Receptor Calcium Signals in Dendritic Spines,” Neuron. Cell Press, 66(1), pp. 101-113. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.012.

Chavez-Noriega, L. E. and Stevens, C. F. (1992) “Modulation of synaptic efficacy in field CA1 of the rat hippocampus by forskolin.,” Brain research, 574(1-2), pp. 85-92. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993 (92)90803-h.

Chen, F., Tillberg, P. W. and Boyden, E. S. (2015) “Expansion microscopy,” Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 347(6221), pp. 543-548. doi: 10.1126/science.1260088.

Chen, T.-W. et al. (2013) “Ultrasensitive fluorescent proteins for imaging neuronal activity,” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 499(7458), pp. 295-300. doi: 10.1038/nature12354.

Chen, Z. et al. (2019) “Programmable design of orthogonal protein heterodimers,” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, pp. 106-111. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0802-y.

Chijiwa, T. et al. (1990) “Inhibition of forskolin-induced neurite outgrowth and protein phosphorylation by a newly synthesized selective inhibitor of cyclic AMP-dependent protein kinase, N-[2-(p-bromocinnamylamino)ethyl]-5-isoquinolinesulfonamide (H-89), of PC12D pheochromocytoma cells,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, 265(9), pp. 5267-5272.

Cho-Chung, Y. S. (1990) “Role of cyclic AMP receptor proteins in growth, differentiation, and suppression of malignancy: new approaches to therapy,” Cancer research. American Association for Cancer Research, 50(22), pp. 7093-100. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2224844 (Accessed: Oct. 17, 2018).

Chuong, A. S. et al. (2014) “Noninvasive optical inhibition with a red-shifted microbial rhodopsin,” Nature Neuroscience. Nature Publishing Group, 17(8), pp. 1123-1129. doi: 10.1038/nn.3752.

Cooper, D. M. F., Mons, N. and Karpen, J. W. (1995) “Adenylyl cyclases and the interaction between calcium and cAMP signalling,” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 374(6521), pp. 421-424. doi: 10.1038/374421a0.

Davis, L., Banker, G. A. and Steward, O. (1987) “Selective dendritic transport of RNA in hippocampal neurons in culture,” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 330(6147), pp. 477-479. doi: 10.1038/330477a0.

Delebecque, C. J. et al. (2011) “Organization of Intracellular Reactions with Rationally Designed RNA Assemblies,” Science, 333(6041), pp. 470-474. doi: 10.1126/science.1206938.

Depry, C., Allen, M. D. and Zhang, J. (2011) “Visualization of PKA activity in plasma membrane microdomains.,” Molecular bioSystems, 7(1), pp. 52-8. doi: 10.1039/c0mb00079e.

Dictenberg, J. B. et al. (2008) “A Direct Role for FMRP in Activity-Dependent Dendritic mRNA Transport Links Filopodial-Spine Morphogenesis to Fragile X Syndrome,” Developmental Cell. Cell Press, 14(6), pp. 926-939. doi: 10.1016/J.DEVCEL.2008.04.003.

Ding, Y. et al. (2015) “Ratiometric biosensors based on dimerization-dependent fluorescent protein exchange,” Nature Methods. Nature Publishing Group, 12(3), pp. 195-198. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3261.

DiPilato, L. M. and Zhang, J. (2009) “The role of membrane microdomains in shaping beta2-adrenergic receptor-mediated cAMP dynamics.,” Molecular bioSystems, 5(8), pp. 832-7. doi: 10.1039/b823243a.

Dyachok, O. et al. (2006) “Oscillations of cyclic AMP in hormone-stimulated insulin-secreting β-cells,” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 439(7074), pp. 349-352. doi: 10.1038/nature04410.
Ferguson, G. D. and Storm, D. R. (2004) “Why calcium-stimulated adenylyl cyclases?,” Physiology. American Physiological Society, pp. 271-276. doi: 10.1152/physio1.00010.2004.
Fletcher, J. M. et al. (2012) “A Basis Set of de Novo Coiled-Coil Peptide Oligomers for Rational Protein Design and Synthetic Biology,” ACS Synthetic Biology, 1(6), pp. 240-250. doi: 10.1021/sb300028q.
Fourcaudot, E. et al. (2009) “L-type voltage-dependent Ca2+ channels mediate expression of presynaptic LTP in amygdala,” Nature Neuroscience, 12(9), pp. 1093-1095. doi: 10.1038/nn.2378.
Franklin, N. C. (1985) “Conservation of genome form but not sequence in the transcription antitermination determinants of bacteriophages lambda, phi 21 and P22,” Journal of molecular biology, 181(1), pp. 75-84. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3157001 (Accessed: Oct. 14, 2018).
Frey, U., Huang, Y. Y. and Kandel, E. R. (1993) “Effects of cAMP simulate a late stage of LTP in hippocampal CA1 neurons,” Science (New York, N.Y.), 260(5114), pp. 1661-4. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8389057 (Accessed: Oct. 17, 2018).
Garcia-Seisdedos, H. et al. (2017) “Proteins evolve on the edge of supramolecular self-assembly,” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 548(7666), p. 244. doi: 10.1038/nature23320.
Giese, K. P. and Mizuno, K. (2013) “The roles of protein kinases in learning and memory,” Learning and Memory, pp. 540-552. doi: 10.1101/1 m.028449.112.
Golding, I. and Cox, E. C. (2004) “RNA dynamics in live Escherichia coli cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(31), pp. 11310-11315. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0404443101.
Gonen, S. et al. (2015) “Design of ordered two-dimensional arrays mediated by noncovalent protein-protein interfaces,” Science (New York, N.Y.). American Association for the Advancement of Science, 348(6241), pp. 1365-8. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa9897.
Gorbunova, Y. V. and Spitzer, N. C. (2002) “Dynamic interactions of cyclic AMP transients and spontaneous Ca2+ spikes,” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 418(6893), pp. 93-96. doi: 10.1038/nature00835.
Govindarajan, A. et al. (2011) “The Dendritic Branch Is the Preferred Integrative Unit for Protein Synthesis-Dependent LTP,” Neuron, 69(1), pp. 132-146. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.12.008.
Gradišar, H. et al. (2013) “Design of a single-chain polypeptide tetrahedron assembled from coiled-coil segments,” Nature Chemical Biology. Nature Publishing Group, 9(6), pp. 362-366. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.1248.
Grigoryan, G. et al. (2011) “Computational design of virus-like protein assemblies on carbon nanotube surfaces,” Science (New York, N.Y.). NIH Public Access, 332(6033), pp. 1071-6. doi: 10.1126/science.1198841.
Grigoryan, G. and Segal, M. (2013) “Prenatal stress alters noradrenergic modulation of LTP in hippocampal slices,” Journal of Neurophysiology. American Physiological Society, 110(2), pp. 279-285. doi: 10.1152/jn.00834.2012.
Hackley, C. R., Mazzoni, E. O. and Blau, J. (2018) “cAMPr: A single-wavelength fluorescent sensor for cyclic AMP.,” Science signaling. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 11(520), p. eaah3738. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.aah3738.
Hancock, J. F. et al. (1991) “A CAAX or a CAAL motif and a second signal are sufficient for plasma membrane targeting of ras proteins,” The EMBO journal. European Molecular Biology Organization, 10(13), pp. 4033-9. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1756714 (Accessed: Oct. 15, 2018).
Hanson, M. G. et al. (1998) “Cyclic AMP elevation is sufficient to promote the survival of spinal motor neurons in vitro,” Journal of Neuroscience, 18(18), pp. 7361-7371. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-18-07361.1998.
Hardingham, G. E., Arnold, F. J. L. and Bading, H. (2001) “Nuclear calcium signaling controls CREB-mediated gene expression triggered by synaptic activity,” Nature Neuroscience. Nature Publishing Group, 4(3), pp. 261-267. doi: 10.1038/85109.
Hocine, S. et al. (2013) “Single-molecule analysis of gene expression using two-color RNA labeling in live yeast,” Nature Methods, 10(2), pp. 119-121. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2305.
Holt, C. E. and Schuman, E. M. (2013) “The Central Dogma Decentralized: New Perspectives on RNA Function and Local Translation in Neurons,” Neuron. Cell Press, 80(3), pp. 648-657. doi: 10.1016/J.NEURON.2013.10.036.
Hopp, T. P. et al. (1988) “A Short Polypeptide Marker Sequence Useful for Recombinant Protein Identification and Purification,” Bio/Technology. Nature Publishing Group, 6(10), pp. 1204-1210. doi: 10.1038/nbt1088-1204.
Howe, A. K. (2011) “Cross-talk between calcium and protein kinase A in the regulation of cell migration,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, pp. 554-561. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2011.05.006.
Hsia, Y. et al. (2016) “Design of a hyperstable 60-subunit protein icosahedron,” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 535(7610), pp. 136-139. doi: 10.1038/nature18010.
Huang, P.-S. et al. (2014) “High thermodynamic stability of parametrically designed helical bundles.,” Science (New York, N.Y.). Europe PMC Funders, 346(6208), pp. 481-485. doi: 10.1126/science.1257481.
Huang, P.-S., Boyken, S. E. and Baker, D. (2016) “The coming of age of de novo protein design,” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 537(7620), pp. 320-327. doi: 10.1038/nature19946.
Huang, Y.-Y. and Kandel, E. R. (1994) Recruitment of Long-lasting and Protein Kinase A-dependent Long-term Potentiation in the CA I Region of Hippocampus Requires Repeated Tetanization.
Indelicato, G. et al. (2016) “Principles Governing the Self-Assembly of Coiled-Coil Protein Nanoparticles,” Biophysical Journal, 110(3), pp. 646-660. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2015.10.057.
Kandel, E. R., Dudai, Y. and Mayford, M. R. (2014) “The molecular and systems biology of memory,” Cell. Cell Press, pp. 163-186. doi: 10.1016/j.ce11.2014.03.001.
King, N. P. et al. (2012) “Computational design of self-assembling protein nanomaterials with atomic level accuracy.,” Science (New York, N.Y.). Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 336(6085), pp. 1171-4. doi: 10.1126/science.1219364.
King, N. P. et al. (2014) “Accurate design of co-assembling multi-component protein nanomaterials.,” Nature. NIH Public Access, 510(7503), pp. 103-8. doi: 10.1038/nature13404.
Klapoetke, N. C. et al. (2014) “Independent optical excitation of distinct neural populations.,” Nature methods. NIH Public Access, 11(3), pp. 338-46. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2836.
Ku, T. et al. (2016) “Multiplexed and scalable super-resolution imaging of three-dimensional protein localization in size-adjustable tissues,” Nature Biotechnology. Nature Publishing Group, 34(9), pp. 973-981. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3641.
Lai, Y.-T. et al. (2014) “Structure of a designed protein cage that self-assembles into a highly porous cube.,” Nature chemistry. NIH Public Access, 6(12), pp. 1065-71. doi: 10.1038/nchem.2107.
Lai, Y.-T. et al. (2016) “Designing and defining dynamic protein cage nanoassemblies in solution,” Science Advances. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2(12), pp. e1501855-e1501855. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1501855.
Lai, Y.-T., Cascio, D. and Yeates, T. O. (2012) “Structure of a 16-nm cage designed by using protein oligomers.,” Science (New York, N.Y.), 336(6085), p. 1129. doi: 10.1126/science.1219351.
Lee, H. K. et al. (1998) “NMDA induces long-term synaptic depression and dephosphorylation of the GluR1 subunit of AMPA receptors in hippocampus,” Neuron. Cell Press, 21(5), pp. 1151-1162. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80632-7.
Li, S. et al. (2013) “Environmental novelty activates β2-adrenergic signaling to prevent the impairment of hippocampal LTP by Aβ oligomers,” Neuron. Cell Press, 77(5), pp. 929-941. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.040.
Li, W. et al. (2018) “Reduced Cyclic Adenosine Monophosphate Level in Hippocampal CA1 Participates in Propofol Induced Amnesia in Rats,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00337.
Lim, F., Downey, T. P. and Peabody, D. S. (2001) “Translational repression and specific RNA binding by the coat protein of the Pseudomonas phage PP7.,” The Journal of biological chemistry. American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 276(25), pp. 22507-13. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M102411200.
Lin, J. R. et al. (2018) “Highly multiplexed immunofluorescence imaging of human tissues and tumors using t-CyCIF and conventional optical microscopes,” eLife. eLife Sciences Publications Ltd, 7. doi: 10.7554/eLife.31657.
Lyford, G. L. et al. (1995) “Arc, a growth factor and activity-regulated gene, encodes a novel cytoskeleton-associated protein that is enriched in neuronal dendrites,” Neuron. Cell Press, 14(2), pp. 433-445. doi: 10.1016/0896-6273(95)90299-6.
Makino, H. and Malinow, R. (2009) “AMPA Receptor Incorporation into Synapses during LTP: The Role of Lateral Movement and Exocytosis,” Neuron, 64(3), pp. 381-390. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.08.035.
Mao, L. et al. (2005) “Role of protein phosphatase 2A in mGluR5-regulated MEK/ERK phosphorylation in neurons,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, 280(13), pp. 12602-12610. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M411709200.
Martin, R. M. et al. (2013) “Live-Cell Visualization of Pre-mRNA Splicing with Single-Molecule Sensitivity,” Cell Reports, 4(6), pp. 1144-1155. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.08.013.
Mehta, S. et al. (2018) “Single-fluorophore biosensors for sensitive and multiplexed detection of signalling activities,” Nature Cell Biology. Nature Publishing Group, 20(10), pp. 1215-1225. doi: 10.1038/s41556-018-0200-6.
Mehta, S. and Zhang, J. (2011) “Reporting from the Field: Genetically Encoded Fluorescent Reporters Uncover Signaling Dynamics in Living Biological Systems,” Annual Review of Biochemistry. Annual Reviews, 80(1), pp. 375-401. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060409-093259.

Ménard, C. and Quirion, R. (2012) “Group 1 metabotropic glutamate receptor function and its regulation of learning and memory in the aging brain,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, 3 OCT. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2012.00182.

Micheva, K. D. and Smith, S. J. (2007) “Array Tomography: A New Tool for Imaging the Molecular Architecture and Ultrastructure of Neural Circuits,” Neuron. Cell Press, 55(1), pp. 25-36. doi: 10.1016/J.NEURON.2007.06.014.
Miedlich, S., Gama, L. and Breitwieser, G. E. (2002) “Calcium Sensing Receptor Activation by a Calcimimetic Suggests a Link between Cooperativity and Intracellular Calcium Oscillations,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, 277(51), pp. 49691-49699. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M205578200.
Mironov, S. L. et al. (2009) “Imaging cytoplasmic cAMP in mouse brainstem neurons,” BMC Neuroscience, 10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-10-29.
Mo, G. C. H. et al. (2017) “Genetically encoded biosensors for visualizing live-cell biochemical activity at super-resolution,” Nature Methods. Nature Publishing Group, 14(4), pp. 427-434. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4221.
Moffitt, J. R. et al. (2016) “High-performance multiplexed fluorescence in situ hybridization in culture and tissue with matrix imprinting and clearing,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. National Academy of Sciences, 113(50), pp. 14456-14461. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1617699113.
Moll, J. R. et al. (2001) “Designed heterodimerizing leucine zippers with a ranger of pIs and stabilities up to 10-15 M,” Protein Science. Wiley-Blackwell, 10(3), pp. 649-655. doi: 10.1110/ps.39401.
Murphy, J. G. et al. (2014) “AKAP-anchored PKA maintains neuronal L-type calcium channel activity and NFAT transcriptional signaling,” Cell Reports. Elsevier, 7(5), pp. 1577-1588. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.04.027.
Murray, E. et al. (2015) “Simple, Scalable Proteomic Imaging for High-Dimensional Profiling of Intact Systems,” Cell. Cell Press, 163(6), pp. 1500-1514. doi: 10.1016/J.CELL.2015.11.025.
Negron, C. and Keating, A. E. (2014) “A Set of Computationally Designed Orthogonal Antiparallel Homodimers that Expands the Synthetic Coiled-Coil Toolkit,” Journal of the American Chemical Society. American Chemical Society, 136(47), pp. 16544-16556. doi: 10.1021/ja507847t.
Ni, Q. et al. (2011) “Signaling diversity of PKA achieved via a Ca2+-cAMP-PKA oscillatory circuit,” Nature Chemical Biology. Nature Publishing Group, 7(1), pp. 34-40. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.478.
Oakley, M. G. and Kim, P. S. (1998) “A Buried Polar Interaction Can Direct the Relative Orientation of Helices in a Coiled Coil,” Biochemistry, 37(36), pp. 12603-12610. doi: 10.1021/bi981269m.
Ohadi, D. et al. (2019) “Computational Modeling Reveals Frequency Modulation of Calcium-cAMP/PKA Pathway in Dendritic Spines,” Biophysical Journal. Biophysical Society, 117(10), pp. 1963-1980. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.10.003.
Ohta, Y. et al. (2018) “Red fluorescent cAMP indicator with increased affinity and expanded dynamic range,” Scientific Reports. Nature Publishing Group, 8(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-20251-1.
Oliveira, A. F. and Yasuda, R. (2013) “An Improved Ras Sensor for Highly Sensitive and Quantitative FRET-FLIM Imaging,” PLoS ONE. Edited by D. Holowka. Public Library of Science, 8(1), p. e52874. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052874.
Otmakhov, N. et al. (2004) “Forskolin-Induced LTP in the CA1 Hippocampal Region Is NMDA Receptor Dependent,” Journal of Neurophysiology, 91(5), pp. 1955-1962. doi: 10.1152/jn.00941.2003.
Otsuguro, K. et al. (2005) “Characterization of forskolin-induced Ca2+ signals in rat olfactory receptor neurons.,” Journal of pharmacological sciences, 97(4), pp. 510-8. doi: 10.1254/jphs.fp0040883.
Partridge, J. G. et al. (2014) “Contrasting actions of group I metabotropic glutamate receptors in distinct mouse striatal neurones,” Journal of Physiology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 592(13), pp. 2721-2733. doi: 10.1113/jphysio1.2014.272773.
Piatkevich, K. D. et al. (2018) “A robotic multidimensional directed evolution approach applied to fluorescent voltage reporters article,” Nature Chemical Biology. Nature Publishing Group, 14(4), pp. 352-360. doi: 10.1038/s41589-018-0004-9.
Qian, H. et al. (2017) “Phosphorylation of Ser1928 mediates the enhanced activity of the L-type Ca2+ channel Cav1.2 by the β2-adrenergic receptor in neurons,” Science Signaling. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 10(463). doi: 10.1126/scisignal.aaf9659.
Redmond, L., Kashani, A. H. and Ghosh, A. (2002) “Calcium Regulation of Dendritic Growth via CaM Kinase IV and CREB-Mediated Transcription,” Neuron. Cell Press, 34(6), pp. 999-1010. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00737-7.
Roberson, E. D. and David Sweatt, J. (1996) Transient Activation of Cyclic AMP-dependent Protein Kinase during Hippocampal Long-term Potentiation*Downloaded from, The Journal of Biological Chemistry. Available at: http://www-jbc.stanford.edu/jbc/(Accessed: Dec. 3, 2019).
Sassone-Corsi, P. (2012) “The Cyclic AMP pathway,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 4(12). doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a011148.
Schmidt, U. et al. (2018) “Cell detection with star-convex polygons,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Springer Verlag, pp. 265-273. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-00934-2_30.
Shah, S. et al. (2017) “seqFISH Accurately Detects Transcripts in Single Cells and Reveals Robust Spatial Organization in the Hippocampus,” Neuron. Elsevier, 94(4), p. 752-758.el. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.008.
Shekhawat, S. S. et al. (2009) “An Autoinhibited Coiled-Coil Design Strategy for Split-Protein Protease Sensors,” Journal of the American Chemical Society. American Chemical Society, 131(42), pp. 15284-15290. doi: 10.1021/ja9050857.
Shelly, M. et al. (2010) “Local and long-range reciprocal regulation of cAMP and cGMP in axon/dendrite formation,” Science, 327(5965), pp. 547-552. doi: 10.1126/science.1179735.
Sheng, M., Thompson, M. A. and Greenberg, M. E. (1991) “CREB: a Ca(2+)-regulated transcription factor phosphorylated by calmodulin-dependent kinases,” Science (New York, N.Y.). American Association for the Advancement of Science, 252(5011), pp. 1427-30. doi: 10.1126/SCIENCE.1646483.
Shimozono, S. et al. (2013) “Visualization of an endogenous retinoic acid gradient across embryonic development,” Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 496(7445), pp. 363-366. doi: 10.1038/nature12037.
Siso-Nadal, F. et al. (2009) “Cross-talk between signaling pathways can generate robust oscillations in calcium and cAMP,” PLoS ONE, 4(10). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007189.
Skeberdis, V. A. et al. (2006) “Protein kinase A regulates calcium permeability of NMDA receptors,” Nature Neuroscience. Nature Publishing Group, 9(4), pp. 501-510. doi: 10.1038/nn1664.
Song, Y. et al. (2013) “High-resolution comparative modeling with RosettaCM,” Structure, 21(10), pp. 1735-1742. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2013.08.005.
Southern, J. A. et al. (1991) “Identification of an epitope on the P and V proteins of simian virus 5 that distinguishes between two isolates with different biological characteristics,” Journal of General Virology, 72(7), pp. 1551-1557. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-72-7-1551.
Tadross, M. R., Tsien, R. W. and Yue, D. T. (2013) “Ca2+ channel nanodomains boost local Ca2+ amplitude,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. National Academy of Sciences, 110(39), pp. 15794-9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1313898110.
Tarantino, N. et al. (2014) “Tnf and it-1 exhibit distinct ubiquitin requirements for inducing NEMO-IKK supramolecular structures,” Journal of Cell Biology, 204(2), pp. 231-245. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201307172.
Tenner, B. et al. (2020) “Spatially compartmentalized phase regulation of a Ca2+-cAMP-PKA oscillatory circuit,” bioRxiv. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, p. 2020.01.10.902312. doi: 10.1101/2020.01.10.902312.
Thomas, M. J. et al. (1996) “Activity-dependent β-adrenergic modulation of low frequency stimulation induced LTP in the hippocampal CA1 region,” Neuron. Cell Press, 17(3), pp. 475-482. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80179-8.
Thomson, A. R. et al. (2014) “Computational design of water-soluble α-helical barrels,” Science, 346(6208), pp. 485-488. doi: 10.1126/science.1257452.
Tillberg, P. W. et al. (2016) “Protein-retention expansion microscopy of cells and tissues labeled using standard fluorescent proteins and antibodies,” Nature Biotechnology. Nature Publishing Group, 34(9), pp. 987-992. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3625.
Tinevez, J.-Y. et al. (2017) “TrackMate: An open and extensible platform for single-particle tracking,” Methods. Academic Press, 115, pp. 80-90. doi: 10.1016/J.YMETH.2016.09.016.
Tripet, B. et al. (1996) “Engineering a de novo-designed coiled-coil heterodimerization domain for the rapid detection, purification and characterization of recombinantly expressed peptides and proteins,” “Protein Engineering, Design and Selection.” Oxford University Press, 9(11), pp. 1029-1042. doi: 10.1093/protein/9.11.1029.
Trudeau, L. E., Emery, D. G. and Haydon, P. G. (1996) “Direct modulation of the secretory machinery underlies PKA-dependent synaptic facilitation in hippocampal neurons,” Neuron, 17(4), pp. 789-97. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8893035 (Accessed: Oct. 17, 2018).
Vay, L. et al. (2007) “Modulation of Ca(2+) release and Ca(2+) oscillations in HeLa cells and fibroblasts by mitochondrial Ca(2+) uniporter stimulation.,” The Journal of physiology. Wiley-Blackwell, 580(Pt 1), pp. 39-49. doi: 10.1113/jphysio1.2006.126391.
Vinkenborg, J. L. et al. (2009) “Genetically encoded FRET sensors to monitor intracellular Zn2+ homeostasis,” Nature Methods. Nature Publishing Group, 6(10), pp. 737-740. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1368.
Violin, J. D. et al. (2003) “A genetically encoded fluorescent reporter reveals oscillatory phosphorylation by protein kinase C.,” The Journal of cell biology, 161(5), pp. 899-909. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200302125.
Viswanathan, S. et al. (2015) “High-performance probes for light and electron microscopy,” Nature Methods. Nature Publishing Group, 12(6), pp. 568-576. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3365.
Waltereit, R. and Weller, M. (2003) “Signaling from cAMP/PKA to MAPK and synaptic plasticity,” Molecular Neurobiology. Humana Press, 27(1), pp. 99-106. doi: 10.1385/MN:27:1:99.
Wang, G. et al. (2006) “Identification of genes targeted by the androgen and PKA signaling pathways in prostate cancer cells,” Oncogene, 25(55), pp. 7311-7323. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1209715.
Wang, H. and Zhuo, M. (2012) “Group I metabotropic glutamate receptor-mediated gene transcription and implications for synaptic plasticity and diseases,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, 3 NOV. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2012.00189.
Weigert, M. et al. (2019) “Star-convex Polyhedra for 3D Object Detection and Segmentation in Microscopy.” Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03636 (Accessed: Dec. 16, 2019).
Williams, M. R. et al. (2001) “Role of the endoplasmic reticulum in shaping calcium dynamics in human lens cells,” Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 42(5), pp. 1009-17. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11274079 (Accessed: Oct. 14, 2018).
Wilson, I. A. et al. (1984) “The structure of an antigenic determinant in a protein.,” Cell, 37(3), pp. 767-78. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6204768 (Accessed: Oct. 22, 2018).
Wong, S T et al. (1999) “Calcium-stimulated adenylyl cyclase activity is critical for hippocampus-dependent long-term memory and late phase LTP.,” Neuron, 23(4), pp. 787-98. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(01)80036-2.
Wong, Scott T. et al. (1999) “Calcium-stimulated adenylyl cyclase activity is critical for hippocampus-dependent long-term memory and late phase LTP,” Neuron. Cell Press, 23(4), pp. 787-798. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(01)80036-2.
Wozny, C. et al. (2008) “Brief Communications Differential cAMP Signaling at Hippocampal Output Synapses.” doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4973-08.2008.
Wroblewska, A. et al. (2018) “Protein Barcodes Enable High-Dimensional Single-Cell CRISPR Screens,” Cell. Elsevier, 175(4), p. 1141-1155.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.ce11.2018.09.022.
Wu, B. et al. (2015) “Synonymous modification results in high-fidelity gene expression of repetitive protein and nucleotide sequences.,” Genes & development. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 29(8), pp. 876-86. doi: 10.1101/gad.259358.115.
Wu, B. et al. (2016) “Translation dynamics of single mRNAs in live cells and neurons.,” Science (New York, N.Y.). American Association for the Advancement of Science, 352(6292), pp. 1430-5. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf1084.

Wu, B., Chao, J. A. and Singer, R. H. (2012) “Fluorescence Fluctuation Spectroscopy Enables Quantitative Imaging of Single mRNAs in Living Cells,” Biophysical Journal, 102(12), pp. 2936-2944. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.05.017.

Van Der Zee, E. A. and Douma, B. R. K. (1997) “Historical review of research on protein kinase C in learning and memory,” Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. Elsevier Inc., 21(3), pp. 379-406. doi: 10.1016/S0278-5846(97)00010-9.
Zaccai, N. R. et al. (2011) “A de novo peptide hexamer with a mutable channel,” Nature Chemical Biology, 7(12), pp. 935-941. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.692.
Zanassi, P. et al. (2001) “cAMP-dependent protein kinase induces cAMP-response element-binding protein phosphorylation via an intracellular calcium release/ERK-dependent pathway in striatal neurons.,” The Journal of biological chemistry. American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 276(15), pp. 11487-95. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M007631200.
Zhang, Q. et al. (2018) “Visualizing Dynamics of Cell Signaling In Vivo with a Phase Separation-Based Kinase Reporter.,” Molecular cell. NIH Public Access, 69(2), pp. 334-346.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.12.008.

EQUIVALENTS

Although several embodiments of the present invention have been described and illustrated herein, those of ordinary skill in the art will readily envision a variety of other means and/or structures for performing the functions and/or obtaining the results and/or one or more of the advantages described herein, and each of such variations and/or modifications is deemed to be within the scope of the present invention. More generally, those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that all parameters, dimensions, materials, and configurations described herein are meant to be exemplary and that the actual parameters, dimensions, materials, and/or configurations will depend upon the specific application or applications for which the teachings of the present invention is/are used. Those skilled in the art will recognize, or be able to ascertain using no more than routine experimentation, many equivalents to the specific embodiments of the invention described herein. It is, therefore, to be understood that the foregoing embodiments are presented by way of example only and that, within the scope of the appended claims and equivalents thereto; the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described and claimed. The present invention is directed to each individual feature, system, article, material, and/or method described herein. In addition, any combination of two or more such features, systems, articles, materials, and/or methods, if such features, systems, articles, materials, and/or methods are not mutually inconsistent, is included within the scope of the present invention.

All definitions, as defined and used herein, should be understood to control over dictionary definitions, definitions in documents incorporated by reference, and/or ordinary meanings of the defined terms.

The indefinite articles “a” and “an,” as used herein in the specification and in the claims, unless clearly indicated to the contrary, should be understood to mean “at least one.” The phrase “and/or,” as used herein in the specification and in the claims, should be understood to mean “either or both” of the elements so conjoined, i.e., elements that are conjunctively present in some cases and disjunctively present in other cases. Other elements may optionally be present other than the elements specifically identified by the “and/or” clause, whether related or unrelated to those elements specifically identified, unless clearly indicated to the contrary.

All references, patents and patent applications and publications that are cited or referred to in this application are incorporated by reference in their entirety herein.

METHODS FOR SIMULTANEOUS MEASUREMENT OF MULTIPLE BIOLOGICAL SIGNALS FROM SPECTRALLY IDENTICAL FLUORESCENT REPORTERS

Information

Publication Number

Date Filed

Date Published

Inventors

Original Assignees

CPC

International Classifications

Abstract

Description

Claims

RELATED APPLICATIONS

GOVERNMENT INTEREST

Provisional Applications (1)