Study of ERMCS morphology and structure |
Electron microscopy |
Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) |
• Golden standard |
• Provides static, high-resolution ultrastructure information |
• Suitable for samples with a large amount of contact sites |
• Fixation may introduce artifacts |
|
Electron tomography (ET) |
• Three-dimensional view of the subcellular structures |
• Technically challenging |
• “missing wedge” artifacts |
|
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) |
• Provides high-resolution 3D image |
• Overcome the “missing wedge” artifacts |
• Needs powerful computer to process large datasets |
Epifluorescence and confocal microscopy |
Super-resolution microscopy |
• Suitable for both static and live-cell imaging |
• Enable the high-resolution observation of ERMCS dynamics |
• Optical diffraction limit |
• Fixation may introduce artifacts |
|
FRET-based reporter |
• Provides temporal quantitative measurements of contact distance |
• Prolonged drug treatments can introduce artifacts |
|
Split green fluorescent protein (GFP) |
• Different probes could be used to examine the narrow and wide contacts |
• Less responsive to the subtle changes in the contacts |
|
Light-inducible ER–mitochondria tethering (LIT) system |
• Temporally regulate the contacts |
• Avoid side effects caused by continuous ER–mitochondria tethering |
• Needs careful control |
Split Rluc8 |
• Easy technique |
• Needs careful control |
Proximity ligation assay (PLA) |
• Mainly used to detect the proximity between the two proteins |
• Requires antibodies to the proteins of interest |
Detection of resident proteins in ERMCSs |
Cell fractionation |
• Major technique to isolate the fraction of ERMCS and identify its protein components |
• Purity is hard to guarantee |
Ascorbate peroxidase (APEX) Tagging |
• Identify new contact-site proteins |
• Combining it with biochemical cell fractionation will reach a better purity |
• Technically challenging |
• Needs careful control |