Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Traffic. 2012 Oct 10;13(12):1589–1600. doi: 10.1111/tra.12008

Table 5.

Comparison of FRAP parameters for EGFP in the cytosol obtained by confocal FRAP under different experimental conditions

Experimental Setup 1.1 μm diameter ROI 2.2 μm diameter ROI
Parameters 20 iterations
(N=8)		 40 iterations
(N=10)		 20 iterations
(N=10)		 40 iterations
(N=8)
rn (μm) 0.55 0.55 1.1 1.1
re (μm) 7.2 7.3 8.6 9.3
τ1/2 (s) 0.28±0.10 0.30±0.12 0.22±0.02 0.28±0.02
K 0.29±0.01 0.32±0.02 0.38±0.01 0.41±0.01
Mf 0.89±0.04 0.89±0.03 0.84±0.01 0.87±0.02

rn (μm): user defined nominal radius. re (μm): effective radius measured from the averaged postbleach profiles. τ1/2 (s): Halftime-of-recovery of an individual FRAP curve. K: Photobleaching depth parameter. Mf: Mobile fraction calculated by Eq. 3. Iterations: the number of cycles in photobleaching laser scans. FRAP curves (n=1) taken from (17) were re-analyzed without correction for background and photofading. Mf’s found in Table 4 were estimated from data fitting and are therefore larger than Mf’s in Table 5. N: total number of cells. Mean ± SE over N.