Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2020 Nov 24;18(11):e3000965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000965

Improved genetically encoded near-infrared fluorescent calcium ion indicators for in vivo imaging

Yong Qian 1,2, Danielle M Orozco Cosio 2, Kiryl D Piatkevich 2,3, Sarah Aufmkolk 4,5,6, Wan-Chi Su 7, Orhan T Celiker 2, Anne Schohl 4, Mitchell H Murdock 2, Abhi Aggarwal 8, Yu-Fen Chang 7, Paul W Wiseman 5,9, Edward S Ruthazer 4, Edward S Boyden 2, Robert E Campbell 1,10,*
Editor: Polina V Lishko11
PMCID: PMC7723245  PMID: 33232322

Abstract

Near-infrared (NIR) genetically encoded calcium ion (Ca2+) indicators (GECIs) can provide advantages over visible wavelength fluorescent GECIs in terms of reduced phototoxicity, minimal spectral cross talk with visible light excitable optogenetic tools and fluorescent probes, and decreased scattering and absorption in mammalian tissues. Our previously reported NIR GECI, NIR-GECO1, has these advantages but also has several disadvantages including lower brightness and limited fluorescence response compared to state-of-the-art visible wavelength GECIs, when used for imaging of neuronal activity. Here, we report 2 improved NIR GECI variants, designated NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G, derived from NIR-GECO1. We characterized the performance of the new NIR GECIs in cultured cells, acute mouse brain slices, and Caenorhabditis elegans and Xenopus laevis in vivo. Our results demonstrate that NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G provide substantial improvements over NIR-GECO1 for imaging of neuronal Ca2+ dynamics.


This study describes improved genetically encoded near-infrared fluorescent calcium ion indicators, demonstrating that they enable robust detection of neuronal activity in cultured cells, rodent brain slices, Caenorhabditis elegans, and Xenopus laevis.

Introduction

Fluorescence imaging of intracellular calcium ion (Ca2+) transients using genetically encoded Ca2+ indicators (GECIs) is a powerful and effective technique to monitor in vivo neuron activity in model organisms [14]. Over a time frame spanning 2 decades [5,6], tremendous effort has been invested in the development of visible wavelength GECIs based on green and red fluorescent proteins (GFP and RFP, respectively). These efforts have produced a series of high-performance GECIs that are highly optimized in terms of brightness, kinetics, Ca2+ affinities, cooperativity, and resting (baseline) fluorescence [24,7]. In contrast, efforts to develop GECIs with near-infrared (NIR) excitation and emission (>650 nm) are at a relatively nascent state [8,9].

We recently described the conversion of an NIR FP (mIFP, a biliverdin (BV)-binding NIR FP engineered from the PAS and GAF domains of Bradyrhizobium bacteriophytochrome) [10] into a GECI designated NIR-GECO1. NIR-GECO1 was engineered by genetic insertion of the Ca2+-responsive domain calmodulin (CaM)-RS20 into the protein loop close to the BV binding site of mIFP [8]. NIR-GECO1 provides a robust inverted fluorescence response (i.e., a fluorescence decrease upon Ca2+ increase) in response to Ca2+ concentration changes in cultured cells, primary neurons, and acute brain slices. Due to its NIR fluorescence, it has inherent advantages relative to visible wavelength GFP- and RFP-based GECIs including reduced phototoxicity, minimal spectral cross talk with visible light excitable optogenetic tools and fluorescent probes, and decreased scattering and absorption of excitation and emission light in mammalian tissues. However, as a first-generation GECI, NIR-GECO1 is suboptimal by several metrics including relatively low brightness and limited fluorescence response (i.e., ΔF/F0 for a given change in Ca2+ concentration), which limit its utility for in vivo imaging of neuronal activity.

Results

Development of new NIR-GECO variants

Based on ample precedent from the development of the GFP-based GECI GCaMP series [1,3] and the RFP-based R-GECO series [2,11], we reasoned that NIR-GECO1 was likely to be amenable to further improvement by protein engineering and directed molecular evolution. Here, we report that such an effort has led to the development of 2 second-generation variants, designated NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G, which enable fluorescence imaging of neuronal activity–associated changes in intracellular Ca2+ concentration with substantially greater sensitivity than their first-generation progenitor.

Starting from the template of the gene-encoding NIR-GECO1, 3 rounds of directed evolution were performed as described previously [8]. Briefly, the gene-encoding NIR-GECO1 was randomly mutated by error-prone PCR, and the resulting gene library was used to transform Escherichia coli. Petri dishes of colonies were screened using a fluorescence macro-imaging system, brightly fluorescent clones were picked and, following overnight culture, the NIR-GECO1 protein variants were extracted and tested for Ca2+ responsiveness in vitro. The genes encoding the best variants, as determined by the in vitro test, were assessed for brightness and Ca2+ responsiveness when expressed in HeLa cells. The gene that provided the best balance of brightness and function in HeLa cells was used as the template for a subsequent round of combined bacterial and HeLa cell screening. Three rounds of screening led to the identification of 2 promising variants: NIR-GECO2 (equivalent to NIR-GECO1 with T234I, S251T, E259G, Q402E, F463Y, and T478A, numbered as in S1 Fig) and NIR-GECO2G (equivalent to NIR-GECO2 with T251S and S347G; Fig 1A). In terms of fluorescence spectral profile, peak maxima, extinction coefficient (EC), quantum yield (QY), and pKa, NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G are essentially identical to NIR-GECO1 (S1 Table). One of the most pronounced changes in the biophysical properties is that the Ca2+ affinities of NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G are higher than that of NIR-GECO1 with Kd values of 331 nM and 480 nM, respectively (Kd of NIR-GECO1 is 885 nM) (S2A Fig). A parallel effort to construct a second-generation NIR-GECO1 by replacing the mIFP portion with the brighter and homologous miRFP [12] resulted in the functional indicator prototype. However, further optimization was abandoned due to the apparent toxicity of the miRFP-based construct when expressed in E. coli (S3 and S4 Figs).

Fig 1. NIR-GECO evolution and characterization in dissociated neurons.

Fig 1

(a) Mutations of NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G relative to NIRGECO1. The different mutations between NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G are highlighted in green. (b) Relative fluorescence intensity (mean ±  SEM) of NIR-GECO1, NIR-GECO2, NIR-GECO2G, and miRFP720 in neurons (n = 160, 120, 219, and 84 neurons, respectively, from 2 cultures). Fluorescence was normalized by co-expression of GFP via self-cleavable 2A peptide. (ce) Comparison of NIR-GECO variants, as a function of stimulus strength (the same color code is used in panels ce). (c) ΔF/F0; (d) rise time; (e) half decay time. Values are shown as mean ± SD (n = 10 wells from 3 cultures). The underlying data for (b) to (e) can be found in S1 Data. GFP, green fluorescent protein; NIR, near-infrared; SD, standard deviation; SEM, standard error of the mean.

Characterization of new NIR-GECO variants

To compare the intracellular baseline brightness (i.e., fluorescence in a resting state neuron) of NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G with the previously reported NIR-GECO1 and the NIR FP miRFP720 [13], we expressed each construct in cultured neurons and quantified the overall cellular brightness 5 days after transfection. To correct for cell-to-cell variations in protein expression, we co-expressed GFP stoichiometrically via a self-cleaving 2A peptide [14] to serve as an internal reference for expression level. Under these conditions, NIR-GECO2 is approximately 25% dimmer than NIR-GECO1 while NIR-GECO2G is 50% brighter than NIR-GECO1 (Fig 1B). Photobleaching experiments for the neuronally expressed constructs revealed that all the NIR-GECO variants possess similar photostability and photobleach approximately 4× faster than miRFP720 (S2B Fig). Under an excitation intensity of 2.8 mW/mm2 and an exposure time of 100 ms, which was generally used for wide-field imaging of NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G, NIR-GECO2 retained 89.4%, 67.8%, 57.1%, and 48.7% of original fluorescence intensity following 30 minutes of imaging at 1 Hz, 2 Hz, 5 Hz, and continuous illumination, respectively. Under the same imaging conditions, NIR-GECO2G had 94.1%, 85.3%, 68.0%, and 49.5% of the initial brightness remaining after 30 minutes of imaging at 1 Hz, 2 Hz, 5 Hz, and continuous illumination, respectively (S2C and S2D Fig). Based on these results, we recommend 2 Hz (with 100-ms exposure time) as the maximum acquisition rate for imaging of NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G.

To assess the sensitivity (i.e., -ΔF/F0) of the new NIR-GECO variants, electric field stimulation [15] was performed to cultured neurons expressing NIR-GECO2, NIR-GECO2G, and NIR-GECO1. For a single field stimulation-evoked action potential (AP), NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G responded with similar -ΔF/F0 values of 16% and 17%, respectively. These values are 3.6- and 3.7-fold higher, respectively, than that of NIR-GECO1 (4.5%). For small numbers of APs (2 to 10), the responses of NIR-GECO2G were 2.5- to 3.3-fold larger than those of NIR-GECO1 and the responses of NIR-GECO2 were 1.8- to 2.8-fold larger than those of NIR-GECO1. At higher numbers of APs (20 to 80), the improvements of the new variants became less pronounced as the ΔF/F0 values of the 3 variants converged (Fig 1C). The on (rise time, τpeak; Fig 1D) and off (decay time, τ1/2; Fig 1E) kinetics of NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G, in response to field stimulation-evoked APs stimuli, remained similar to that of NIR-GECO1. We also characterized NIR-GECO2G with co-expression of GCaMP6f to see whether the presence of GCaMP6f has effects on the performance of NIR-GECO2G. The brightness of NIR-GECO2G decreased by approximately 16% when co-expressed with GCaMP6f (S2E Fig), but other key properties (i.e., ΔF/F0 and on- and off-kinetics) were effectively unchanged (Fig 1C–1E).

To investigate if NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G provide advantages over NIR-GECO1 for combined use with an optogenetic actuator, we co-transfected HeLa cells with the genes encoding Opto-CRAC and each of the 3 NIR-GECO variants. Opto-CRAC is an optogenetic tool that can be used to induce Ca2+ influx into non-excitatory cells when illuminated with blue light [16]. Transfected HeLa cells were illuminated with 470-nm light at a power of 1.9 mW/mm2, while the NIR fluorescence intensity of NIR-GECO variants was continuously recorded. Following 100 ms of blue light stimulation, the average -ΔF/F0 for NIR-GECO2G, NIR-GECO2, and NIR-GECO1 was 34.5%, 22.8%, and 12.1%, respectively (Fig 2A and 2D). With 500 ms of illumination, the -ΔF/F0 values increased to 48.2%, 42.1%, and 30.7%, respectively. At 1 second of illumination time, the -ΔF/F0 was 40.7%, 38.0%, and 33.3%, respectively (Fig 2A–2C). As a control, we also illuminated HeLa cells expressing only NIR-GECO2 or NIR-GECO2G with blue light (470 nm) at a 3.3-fold higher power intensity than that used in Fig 2 and found no artifactual fluorescence changes (S5 Fig). When expressed in acute brain slices, both NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G robustly reported Ca2+ changes in neurons in response to either optogenetic (CoChR) or chemical (4-aminopyridine) stimulation (S6 Fig). These results support the conclusion that both NIR-GECO2G and NIR-GECO2 are more sensitive than NIR-GECO1 for reporting Ca2+ transients at low Ca2+ concentrations, and NIR-GECO2G is the best of the 3. To further explore the use of NIR-GECO2G, we expressed it in human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (iPSC-CMs). In iPSC-CMs, NIR-GECO2G enabled robust imaging of spontaneous Ca2+ oscillations, caffeine induced Ca2+ influx, and channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2)-dependent activation (S7 Fig).

Fig 2. Performance of NIR-GECO2G, NIR-GECO2, and NIR-GECO1 in HeLa cells.

Fig 2

(ac) Fluorescence traces of NIR-GECO2G, NIR-GECO2, and NIR-GECO1 in response to 100 ms (a), 500 ms (b), and 1 s (c) blue light activation (470 nm at a power of 1.9 mW/mm2) in HeLa cells with co-expression of Opto-CRAC. Opto-CRAC is composed of the STIM1-CT and LOV2 domain. The fusion of STIM1-CT to the LOV2 domain allows photo-controllable exposure of the active site of SRIMI-CT, which is able to interact with ORAI1 and trigger Ca2+ entries across the plasma membrane [16]. Black, green, and dark blue lines represent averaged data for NIR-GECO2G (n = 32 cells), NIR-GECO2 (n = 25 cells), and NIR-GECO1 (n = 23 cells), respectively. The same color code is used in panels a–c. Shaded areas represent the SD. (d) Quantitative -ΔF/F0 (mean ± SD) for NIR-GECO2G, NIR-GECO2, and NIR-GECO1 in a–c. The underlying data for ad can be found in S1 Data. NIR, near-infrared; SD, standard deviation.

In vivo imaging of Ca2+ in C. elegans using NIR-GECO2

To determine if NIR-GECO2 was suitable for in vivo imaging of neuronal activity, we first sought to test it in Caenorhabditis elegans, a popular model organism in neuroscience. For this application, we chose to use NIR-GECO2 rather than NIR-GECO2G due to its higher Ca2+ affinity; however, NIR-GECO2G could be also readily expressed in C. elegans in neurons producing sufficient NIR fluorescence (S8d Fig). As the internal BV concentration of C. elegans is quite low due to its inability to synthesize heme de novo (its main source of heme is from the ingestion of E. coli) [17,18], C. elegans expressing NIR-GECO2 pan-neuronally showed no detectable NIR fluorescence in the brain region (S9 Fig). Thus, we decided to co-express heme oxygenase-1 (HO1) to increase the conversion of heme into BV [19]. We created C. elegans lines expressing NLS-NIR-GECO2-T2A-HO1 (where NLS is a nuclear localization sequence) and NLS-jGCaMP7s under the pan-neuronal tag-168 promoter in an extrachromosomal array. The resulting transgenic worms exhibited bright nuclear localized fluorescence from both NIR-GECO2 and jGCaMP7s (Fig 3A). One notable advantage of the NIR-GECO series relative to the GCaMP series of indicators is the lower autofluorescence in the intestinal area of worms (Fig 3A, S8A and S8D Fig). In worms expressing both NLS-jGCaMP7s and NIR-GECO2, the resting state cellular brightness of NIR-GECO2 was approximately 1.5-fold higher than that of jGCaMP7s (Fig 4A), and the signal-to-background ratio (SBR; i.e., the ratio of fluorescence emitted from neurons to autofluorescence from the intestine area) of NIR-GECO2 was approximately 5-fold larger than that of jGCaMP7s (Fig 4B). The ratio of SBRs for NIR-GECO2 versus jGCaMP7s at different depths into worms (down to the bottom of the worm at approximately 20 μm) revealed no substantial differences as a function of depth (Fig 4D).

Fig 3. Imaging of NIR-GECO2 in response to microfluidic and optogenetic stimulation in C. elegans in vivo.

Fig 3

(a) Left, fluorescent image of neurons expressing NLS-jGCaMP7s (λex = 488-nm laser light, λem   = 527/50 nm). Right, fluorescent image of neurons expressing NIR-GECO2-T2A-HO1 (λex =  640-nm laser light, λem = 685/40 nm). Representative of more than 3 worms, both under tag-168 promoter. Scale bar, 50 μm. (b) Fluorescence traces of NLS-jGCaMP7s (top) and NLS-NIR-GECO2 (bottom) in response to the stimulation of microfluidic containing 200 mM NaCl. Solid lines represent averaged data from 3 neurons. Shaded areas are shown as SD. Triangles on the top of the traces indicate the time points of stimulation (20 seconds for each stimulation). (c) Quantitative fluorescence changes of NLS-jGCaMP7s and NLS-NIR-GECO2 in b (n = 36 spikes from 3 neurons). (d) Fluorescence image of the 4 C. elegans expressing NIR-GECO2-T2A-HO1 in AVA neurons (under flp-18 promoter) and CoChR-GFP in ASH neurons (under sra-6 promoter). The merged image is shown. Imaging conditions: NIR-GECO2, λex = 640-nm laser light, λem = 685/40; GFP, λex = 488-nm laser light, λex = 527/50 nm. (e) Individual traces of NIR-GECO2 fluorescence in an AVA neuron under blue light illumination (20 mW/mm2, λex = 488-nm laser light, 100 ms; blue bars). The underlying data for b, c, and e can be found in S1 Data. NIR, near-infrared; SD, standard deviation.

Fig 4. Comparison of jGCaMP7s and NIR-GECO2 in C. elegans.

Fig 4

(a) Fluorescence intensity of NLS-jGCaMP7s and NIR-GECO2 in C. elegans neurons at resting state. Fluorescence was normalized to the same excitation intensity (n = 132 ROIs from 5 worms; data are shown as mean ± SD) (b) SBR of NLS-jGCaMP7s and NIR-GECO2 in neurons of C. elegans at resting state (n = 132 ROIs from 5 worms; data are shown as mean ± SD). SBR was obtained via dividing the fluorescence intensity from neurons by the averaged autofluorescence from the intestine area. (c) SNR of NLS-jGCaMP7s and NLS-NIR-GECO2 quantified from spontaneously spiking neurons (n = 78 ROIs from 4 worms; data are shown as mean ± SD). SNR was calculated by dividing the fluorescence change associated with a spike by the SD of the baseline fluorescence over the 2-second period immediately before the spike. (d) The ratio of SBRNIR-GECO2 to SBRNLS-jGCaMP7s at different imaging depths (n = 5 worms; data are shown as mean ± SD). (e) The ratio of SNRNLS-NIR-GECO2 to SNRNLS-jGCaMP7s at different imaging depths (n = 4 worms; data are shown as mean ± SD). NIR-GECO2 (without NLS) and NLS-jGCaMP7s were used for the experiments in a, b, and d; NLS-NIR-GECO2 and NLS-jGCaMP7s were used for the experiments in c and e. The underlying data for ae can be found in S1 Data. ROI, region of interest; SBR, signal-to-background ratio; SD, standard deviation; SNR, signal-to-noise ratio.

For functional imaging of NIR-GECO2, microfluidic chips [20] were used to deliver a high osmotic strength stimulus (200 mM NaCl) to individual worms, and the fluorescence was imaged simultaneously in the NIR and green fluorescence channels. Following exposure to a high concentration of NaCl, we detected synchronous but opposing fluorescent changes for jGCaMP7s (fluorescence increases) and NIR-GECO2 (fluorescence decreases) (Fig 3B). Quantitative analysis of 36 spikes from 3 neurons showed that the -ΔF/F0 of NIR-GECO2 was about half of the ΔF/F0 of jGCaMP7s following NaCl stimulation (ΔF/F0 = 0.39 ± 0.19 for jGCaMP7s; -ΔF/F0 = 0.19 ± 0.07 for NIR-GECO2; Fig 3C). We also quantified signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of jGCaMP7s and NIR-GECO2 from spontaneously firing neurons in C. elegans. NIR-GECO2 and jGCaMP7s exhibited similar SNRs (Fig 4C) and neither GECI showed a substantial advantage as a function of imaging depth, consistent with what we found with SBRs (Fig 4E).

We next attempted all-optical stimulation and imaging of neuron activity in C. elegans using the blue light-sensitive channelrhodopsin CoChR [21] and NIR-GECO2. We previously demonstrated that excitation wavelengths used to image NIR-GECO1 do not activate CoChR [8]. NIR-GECO2 (with co-expression of HO1) was expressed in AVA interneurons (involved in backward locomotion) under the flp-18 promoter, and CoChR-GFP was expressed in upstream ASH neurons under control of the sra-6 promoter. Imaging of transgenic worms with confocal microscopy revealed 2 AVA neurons with expression of NIR-GECO2 and 2 ASH neurons with expression of CoChR (Fig 3D). Blue light stimulation of CoChR in ASH neurons caused long-lasting (tens of seconds to a few minutes) fluorescent decreases in NIR-GECO2 fluorescence (-ΔF/F0 of 30% to 90%) in the downstream AVA interneurons (Fig 3E). Collectively, these data indicate that the combination of NIR-GECO2 and CoChR provides a robust all-optical method to interrogate hierarchical circuits in C. elegans.

In vivo imaging of Ca2+ in Xenopus laevis using NIR-GECO2G

To further evaluate the utility of NIR-GECO2G for in vivo imaging of neuronal activity in a vertebrate brain, we transiently expressed the genes encoding NIR-GECO2G (without co-expression of HO1) and GCaMP6s [1] in Xenopus laevis tadpoles by mRNA injection into early embryos. Light-sheet microscopy imaging of the olfactory bulb of live tadpoles revealed that individual neurons exhibited strong NIR fluorescent signals due to NIR-GECO2G expression (Fig 5A and 5B, S1 Video). Fluorescence from both NIR-GECO2G and GCaMP6s was observed to oscillate in a synchronous but opposing manner in response to spontaneous neuronal activity (Fig 5C). These results demonstrate that NIR-GECO2G can be used to report dynamic Ca2+ changes in vivo in X. laevis in the absence of added BV or HO1 co-expression.

Fig 5. Spontaneous Ca2+ response imaging with NIR-GECO2G in the olfactory bulb of Xenopus laevis.

Fig 5

(a) Light-sheet acquisition of spontaneous Ca2+ response in the olfactory bulb in an intact animal. The image shows an intensity projection over 200 frames and a volume spanning 45 μm. The orientation and position of the field of view is marked in the brightfield image of the animal (upper right frame). Scale bar, 40 μm. (b) White frames indicate the cells that showed Ca2+ response with the NIR-GECO2G (magenta) and GCaMP6s (green) indicator. (c) A representative fluorescence response trace of spontaneous activity of 1 cell in the olfactory bulb (solid white ROI in b) is plotted over time. The intensity responses of NIR-GECO2G and GCaMP6s are antagonal to each other. Z-series volumes were acquired once every 3.0 seconds. NIR, near-infrared; ROI, region of interest.

Discussion

In summary, we have developed 2 improved NIR fluorescent Ca2+ indicators designated NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G. Of the 2, NIR-GECO2 has higher response amplitudes but dimmer fluorescence compared to NIR-GECO1, based on characterization in neurons and HeLa cells. In contrast, NIR-GECO2G is improved relative to NIR-GECO1 in terms of both overall cellular brightness (approximately 50% brighter than NIR-GECO1) and sensitivity (up to an approximately 3.7-fold improvement in -ΔF/F0 relative to NIR-GECO1 for single AP). As we have demonstrated in this work, these improvements make the new variants particularly useful for imaging Ca2+ dynamics in small model organisms. Specifically, NIR-GECO2 offers comparable sensitivity to jGCaMP7s in C. elegans and NIR-GECO2G enables robust imaging of Ca2+ dynamics in the olfactory bulb of X. laevis tadpoles. With their NIR excitation and emission, improved sensitivity, and ability to be subcellularly targeted (e.g., with an NLS), NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G should prove useful for multicolor and multi-compartment imaging when combined with other fluorescent probes.

However, even with the improvements described in this work, NIR GECIs still face challenges including lower brightness, slower kinetics, and faster photobleaching compared to the state-of-art green and red fluorescent GECIs. For these reasons, it remains challenging to use NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G to image Ca2+ dynamics with single-cell resolution in rodents where neuronal BV concentrations are low and cannot be substantially increased by the strategy of co-expressing HO1 [8]. A promising approach to overcome this challenge was recently described by Kobachi and colleagues, who demonstrated that knocking out the gene for BV reductase increases the BV concentration in mice and improves the brightness of NIR-GECO1 by 4.3-fold [22]. While the off-kinetics of NIR-GECOs are very similar to that of GCaMP6s or jGCaMP7s, the on-kinetics of NIR-GECO series are slower than that of GCaMP series. These slower on-kinetics may mean that closely spaced Ca2+ peaks, which could be resolved with a GCaMP variant, will appear to merge into a single peak with NIR-GECO variants. Finally, photobleaching of NIR-GECO2(G) was not a major limitation for the 1-photon imaging experiments reported here, but may be a concern for long duration 1-photon imaging experiments or other types of imaging techniques (such as photoacoustic imaging) where strong illumination power is required. Overcoming these challenges will undoubtedly require further directed molecular evolution and optimization of the NIR-GECO series or the possible development of alternative NIR GECI designs based on brighter and more photostable NIR FP scaffolds.

Materials and methods

Mutagenesis and molecular cloning

Synthetic DNA oligonucleotides used for cloning and library construction were purchased from Integrated DNA Technologies (Coralville, Iowa, United States of America). Random mutagenesis of NIR-GECO variants was performed using Taq DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA) with conditions that resulted in a mutation frequency of 1 to 2 mutations per 1,000 base pairs. Gene fragments for NIR-GECO libraries were then inserted between restriction sites XhoI and HindIII of pcDuex2 for expression. The DNA sequences encoding miRFP1 to 172, CaM-RS20 (from NIR-GECO1), and miRFP179 to 311 were amplified by PCR amplification separately and then used as DNA templates for the assembly of miRFP1 to 172—CaM-RS20—miRFP179 to 311 by overlap extension PCR. The resulting DNA sequence was then digested and ligated into the pcDNA3.1(-) vector for mammalian expression and into a pBAD-MycHisC (Invitrogen, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) vector for bacterial expression. Q5 high-fidelity DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs) was used for routine PCR amplification and overlap extension PCR. PCR products and products of restriction digests were routinely purified using preparative agarose gel electrophoresis followed by DNA isolation with the GeneJET gel extraction kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA). Restriction endonucleases were purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Ligations were performed using T4 ligase in Rapid Ligation Buffer (Thermo Fisher Scientific).

Genes or gene libraries in expression plasmids were electroporated into E. coli strain DH10B (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The transformed cells were then plated on 10-cm Lysogeny broth (LB) agar Petri dishes supplemented with 400 μg/mL ampicillin (Sigma, St. Louis, Missouri, USA) and 0.0004% (wt/vol) L-arabinose (Alfa Aesar, Haverhill, Massachusetts, USA) at 37°C overnight. For library screening, bright bacterial colonies expressing NIR-GECO variants were picked and cultured. Proteins were extracted using B-PER (Thermo Fisher Scientific) from overnight cultures of bacteria growing in LB media supplemented with 100 μg/mL ampicillin and 0.0016% L-arabinose and then tested for fluorescence and Ca2+ response in 384-well plates. Variants with the highest brightness and Ca2+ response were selected, and the corresponding plasmids were purified. HeLa cells were transfected with the selected plasmids, and live-cell fluorescence imaging was used to reevaluate both brightness and Ca2+ response. Small-scale isolation of plasmid DNA was done with GeneJET miniprep kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific).

For the construction of Opto-CRAC-EYFP, a synthetic double-stranded DNA fragment consisting of fused EYFP, LOV2, and STIM1-CT fragments (residues 336–486) [16], flanked with NotI and XhoI restriction sites, was cloned into the pcDNA3.1(-) vector.

Protein purification and in vitro characterization

The genes for the miRFP-based Ca2+ indicators NIR-GECO1, NIR-GECO2, and NIR-GECO2G, with a poly-histidine tag on the C-terminus, were expressed from a pBAD-MycHisC (Invitrogen) vector containing the gene of cyanobacteria Synechocystis HO1 as previously described [23,24]. Bacteria were lysed with a cell disruptor (Constant Systems, Northants, United Kingdom) and then centrifuged at 15,000g for 30 minutes, and proteins were purified by Ni-NTA affinity chromatography (Agarose Bead Technologies, Doral, Florida, USA). The buffer was exchanged to 10 mM MOPS, 100 mM KCl (pH 7.2) with centrifugal concentrators (GE Healthcare Life Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada). The spectra of miRFP-based Ca2+ indicator prototype, with and without Ca2+, were measured in a 384-well plate. Briefly, purified proteins were loaded into 384-well plates and then supplied with either 10 mM EGTA or 5 mM CaCl2 before measuring emission spectra. The ECs, QY, and pKa for NIR-GECO variants were determined as previously described [8]. Ca2+ titrations of NIR-GECO variants were performed with EGTA-buffered Ca2+ solutions. We prepared buffers by mixing a CaEGTA buffer (30 mM MOPS, 100 mM KCl, 10 mM EGTA, and 10 mM CaCl2) and an EGTA buffer (30 mM MOPS, 100 mM KCl, and 10 mM EGTA) to give free Ca2+ concentrations ranging from 0 nM to 39 μM at 25°C. Fluorescence intensities were plotted against Ca2+ concentrations and fitted by a sigmoidal binding function to determine the Hill coefficient and Kd. To determine koff for NIR-GECO variants, an SX20 stopped-flow spectrometer (Applied Photophysics, Surrey, UK) was used. Proteins samples with 10-μM CaCl2 (30 mM MOPS, 100 mM KCl, and pH 7.2) were rapidly mixed with 10 mM EGTA (30 mM MOPS, 100 mM KCl, and pH 7.2) at room temperature, and fluorescence growth curve was measured and fitted by a single exponential equation.

Imaging of miRFP-based Ca2+ indicator prototype in HeLa cells

HeLa cells (40% to 60% confluent) on 24-well glass bottom plate (Cellvis, Mountain View, California, USA) were transfected with 0.5 μg of plasmid DNA and 2 μl TurboFect (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Following 2-hour incubation, the media was changed to DEME (Gibco, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Sigma), 2 mM GlutaMax (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and 1% penicillin-streptomycin (Gibco), and the cells were incubated for 48 hours at 37°C in a CO2 incubator before imaging. Prior to imaging, culture medium was changed to Hank’s Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS). Wide-field imaging was performed on a Nikon Eclipse Ti microscope that was equipped with a 75 W Nikon xenon lamp, a 16-bit 512SC QuantEM EMCCD (Photometrics, Tucson, Arizona, USA), and a 60× objective and was driven by a NIS-Elements AR 4.20 software package (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). For time-lapse imaging, HeLa cells were treated with 4 mM EGTA (with 5-μM ionomycin) and then 10 mM CaCl2 (with 5-μM ionomycin). Images were taken every 5 seconds using a filter set with 650/60-nm excitation and 720/60-nm emission.

Imaging of NIR-GECO1 and NIR-GECO2G in HeLa cells with Opto-CRAC

HeLa cells were co-transfected with pcDNA3.1-NIR-GECO1 or pcDNA3.1-NIR-GECO2 and pcDNA3.1-Opto-CRAC-EYFP using transfection reagent Lipofectamine 3000 (Invitrogen) following the manufacturer’s instructions. An inverted microscope (D1, Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) equipped with a 63× objective lens (NA 1.4, Zeiss) and a multiwavelength LED light source (pE-4000, CoolLED, Andover, UK) was used. Blue (470 nm) and red (635 nm) excitations were used to illuminate Opto-CRAC-EYFP and image NIR-GECO variants, respectively. The GFP filter set (BP 470–490, T495lpxr dichroic mirror, and HQ525/50 emission filter) and the NIR filter set (ET 650/45x, T685lpxr dichroic mirror, and ET720/60 emission filter) were used to confirm the expression of Opto-CRAC-EYFP and NIR-GECO variants. The filter set (T685lpxr dichroic mirror, and ET720/60 emission filter) was used to stimulate Opto-CRAC and to acquire fluorescence imaging of NIR-GECO1 and NIR-GECO2G. Optical stimulation was achieved with the 470-nm LED light at a power density of 1.9 mW/mm2. Photoconversion testing of NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G was performed with 470-nm LED light at a power density of 6.2 mW/mm2. Fluorescence signals were recorded by a sCMOS camera (ORCA-Flash4.0LT, Hamamatsu, Hamamatsu City, Japan) and controlled by a software (HC Image or NIS-Elements Advanced Research).

Imaging of NIR-GECO2G in Human iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes

Human iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes (human iPSC cardiomyocytes—male | ax2505) were purchased from Axol Bioscience (Cambridge, UK). The 96-well glass bottom plate was first coated with fibronectin and gelatin (0.5% and 0.1%, respectively) at 37°C for at least 1 hour. The cells were then plated and cultured for 3 days in Axol’s Cardiomyocyte Maintenance Medium. IPSC-CMs were then transfected with pcDNA3.1-NIR-GECO2 with or without pcDNA3.1-hChR2-EYFP using Lipofectamine 3000 (Invitrogen) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The medium was switched to Tyrode’s buffer right before imaging. Imaging was performed with an inverted microscope (D1, Zeiss) equipped with a 63× objective lens (NA 1.4, Zeiss) and a multiwavelength LED light source (pE-4000, CoolLED) using the same settings described above.

Imaging of NIR-GECO1, NIR-GECO2, NIR-GECO2G, and miRFP720 in cultured neurons

For dissociated hippocampal mouse neuron culture preparation, postnatal day 0 or 1 Swiss Webster mice (Taconic Biosciences, Albany, New York, USA) were used as previously described [21]. Briefly, dissected hippocampal tissue was digested with 50 units of papain (Worthington Biochem, Lakewood, New Jersey, USA) for 6 to 8 minutes at 37°C, and the digestion was stopped by incubating with ovomucoid trypsin inhibitor (Worthington Biochem) for 4 minutes at 37°C. Tissue was then gently dissociated with Pasteur pipettes, and dissociated neurons were plated at a density of 20,000 to 30,000 per glass coverslip coated with Matrigel (BD Biosciences, San Jose, California, USA). Neurons were seeded in 100 μL plating medium containing Minimum Essential Medium (MEM) (Thermo Fisher Scientific), glucose (33 mM, Sigma), transferrin (0.01%, Sigma), HEPES (10 mM, Sigma), Glutagro (2 mM, Corning), insulin (0.13%, Millipore, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA), B27 supplement (2%, Gibco), and heat-inactivated FBS (7.5%, Corning, Corning, New York, USA). After cell adhesion, additional plating medium was added. AraC (0.002 mM, Sigma) was added when glia density was 50% to 70% of confluence. Neurons were grown at 37°C and 5% CO2 in a humidified atmosphere.

To express each of NIR-GECO variants in primary hippocampal neurons and compare their brightness and photostability, the gene encoding NIR-GECO(1,2,2G)-T2A-GFP was constructed using overlap-extension PCR followed by subcloning into pAAV-CAG vector (Addgene no. 108420) using BamHI and EcoRI sites. The gene for miRFP720-P2A-GFP was synthesized de novo by GenScript, based on the reported sequence [13], and cloned into the pAAV-CAG vector. Cultured neurons were transfected with plasmids (1.5 μg of plasmid DNA per well) at 4 to 5 days in vitro (DIV) using a commercial calcium phosphate transfection kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) as previously described [21,25].

Wide-field fluorescence microscopy of cultured neurons was performed using an epifluorescence inverted microscope (Eclipse Ti-E, Nikon) equipped with an Orca-Flash4.0 V2 sCMOS camera (Hamamatsu) and a SPECTRA X light engine (Lumencor, Beaverton, Oregon, USA). The NIS-Elements Advanced Research (Nikon) was used for automated microscope and camera control. Cells were imaged with a 20× NA 0.75 air objective lens (Nikon) at room temperature for quantification of brightness or a 40× NA 1.15 for photobleaching experiments (excitation: 631/28 nm; emission: 664LP).

Field stimulation

Neurons expressing NIR-GECO variants (driven by CAG promoter) were imaged and stimulated in 24-well plates with 300 μL growth medium in each well at room temperature. Field stimuli (83 Hz, 50 V, and 1 ms) were delivered in trains of 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 via 2 platinum electrodes with a width of 6.5 mm to neurons. Neurons were imaged simultaneously while delivering trains of field stimuli with a 40× NA 1.15, a 631/28-nm LED (Spectra X light engine, Lumencor). Fluorescence was collected through 664LP using a sCMOS camera (Orca-Flash4.0, Hamamatsu) at 2 Hz.

Ethics statement

All experimental manipulations performed at MIT were in accordance with protocols approved by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Committee on Animal Care (protocol number: 1218-100-21), following guidelines described in the US National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. All procedures performed at McGill University were in accordance with the Canadian Council on Animal Care guidelines for the use of animals in research and approved by the Montreal Neurological Institute Animal Care Committee (protocol number: 2015–7728).

IUE and acute brian slice imaging

In utero electroporation (IUE) was used to deliver the DNA encoding NIR-GECO2 and CoChR or NIR-GECO2G to the mouse brain. Briefly, embryonic day (E) 15.5 timed-pregnant female Swiss Webster (Taconic Biosciences) mice were deeply anesthetized with 2% isoflurane. Uterine horns were exposed and periodically rinsed with warm sterile PBS. A mixture of plasmids pAAV-CAG-NIR-GECO2-WPRE and pCAG-CoChR-mTagBFP2-Kv2.2motif-WPRE or plasmid pAAV-CAG-NIR-GECO2G (at total DNA concentration approximately 1 to 2 μg/μL) were injected into the lateral ventricle of 1 cerebral hemisphere of an embryo. Five voltage pulses (50 V, 50-ms duration, and 1 Hz) were delivered using round plate electrodes (ECM™ 830 electroporator, Harvard Apparatus, Holliston, Massachusetts, USA). Injected embryos were placed back into the dam and allowed to mature to delivery.

Acute brain slices were obtained from Swiss Webster (Taconic Biosciences) mice at postnatal day (P) P11 to P22, using standard techniques. Mice were used without regard for sex. Mice were anesthetized by isoflurane inhalation, decapitated, and cerebral hemispheres were quickly removed and placed in cold choline-based cutting solution consisting of (in mM) 110 choline chloride, 25 NaHCO3, 2.5 KCl, 7 MgCl2, 0.5 CaCl2, 1.25 NaH2PO4, 25 glucose, 11.6 ascorbic acid, and 3.1 pyruvic acid (339 to 341 mOsm/kg; pH 7.75 adjusted with NaOH) for 2 minutes, blocked, and transferred into a slicing chamber containing ice-cold choline-based cutting solution. Coronal slices (300-μm thick) were cut with a Compresstome VF-300 slicing machine, transferred to a holding chamber with artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) containing (in mM) 125 NaCl, 2.5 KCl, 25 NaHCO3, 2 CaCl2, 1 MgCl2, 1.25 NaH2PO4, and 11 glucose (300 to 310  mOsm/kg; pH 7.35 adjusted with NaOH), and recovered for 10 minutes at 34 °C, followed by another 30 minutes at room temperature. Slices were subsequently maintained at room temperature until use. Both cutting solution and ACSF were constantly bubbled with 95% O2 and 5% CO2.

Individual slices were transferred to a recording chamber mounted on an inverted microscope (Eclipse Ti-E, Nikon) and continuously superfused (2 to 3  mL/min) with ACSF at room temperature. Cells were visualized through a 10× (0.45 NA) or 20× (0.75 NA) air objective with epifluorescence to identify positive cells. The fluorescence of NIR-GECO2 or NIR-GECO2G was excited by a SPECTRA X light engine (Lumencor) with 631/28-nm excitation and was collected through a 664LP emission filter, and imaged onto an Orca-Flash4.0 V2 sCMOS camera (Hamamatsu). Optical stimulation of slices expressing NIR-GECO2 and CoChR was performed using a 470-nm LED (M470L3, ThorLabs, Newton, New Jersey, USA) at 0.157 mW/mm2. A 4-AP stimulation was done by adding 4-AP solution to the imaging chamber at a final concentration of 1 mM.

Imaging of NIR-GECO2 in C. elegans

Worms were cultured and maintained following standard protocols [26]. The genes of NIR-GECO2, NIR-GECO2G, HO1, CoChR, and jGCaMP7s for expression in C. elegans were codon-optimized using SnapGene codon-optimization tool and synthesized by GenScript. Transgenic worms expressing NIR-GECO2(G) and jGCaMP7s pan-neuronally or NIR-GECO2 in AVA and CoChR-GFP in ASH were generated by injecting the plasmids tag-168::NLS-NIR-GECO2(G)-T2A-HO1(or NIR-GECO2) and tag-168::NLS-jGCaMP7s or plasmids flp-18::NIR-GECO2-T2A-HO1, sra-6::CoChR-SL2-GFP, and elt-2::NLS-GFP into N2 background worms, respectively, picking those with the strongest expression of green fluorescence (in neurons for the pan-neuronal strain and in the gut for optogenetic strain). NLS sequence used in this experiment was PKKKRKV.

Hermaphrodite transgenic worms were picked at L4 stage of development and put onto NGM plates with freshly seeded OP50 lawns 12 to 24 hours before experiments, with or without 100-μM all-trans-retinal (ATR) for optogenetic experiments. Worms were mounted on 2% agarose pads on microscope slides, immobilized with 5 mM tetramisole, covered by a coverslip, and imaged using a Nikon Eclipse Ti inverted microscope equipped with a confocal spinning disk (CSU-W1), a 40×, 1.15 NA water-immersion objective, and a 5.5 Zyla camera (Andor, Belfast, Northern Ireland), controlled by NIS-Elements AR software. To acquire data shown in Fig 3 and S8 Fig, the fluorescence of NIR-GECO2 was imaged with 640-nm excitation provided by a 41.9-mW laser and a 685/40-nm emission filter; jGCaMP7s/GFP fluorescence was imaged with a 488-nm excitation provided by 59.9-mW laser and a 525/50-nm emission filter. Optogenetic stimulation was performed with 488-nm illumination at 20 mW/mm2. For 200 mM NaCl stimulation, worms were imaged using the same optical setup as above, using a microfluidic device that was described previously [20].

For brightness and SBR comparison of NLS-jGCaMP7s and NIR-GECO2, as shown in Fig 4A, 4B and 4D, the plasmids tag168::NLS-jGCaMP7s and tag168::NIR-GECO2-T2A-HO1 were mixed at a ratio of 1:1 before injection. NLS-jGCaMP7s was imaged with 488-nm excitation at a power of 17.2 mW/mm2, and a 525/50-nm emission filter. NIR-GECO2 was imaged with 640-nm excitation at a power of 12.6 mW/mm2,and a 660LP emission filter. All other instrument settings were the same for NLS-jGCaMP7s and NIR-GECO2. The data for brightness from each ROI were averaged by ROI area. SBR was obtained via dividing fluorescence intensity from neurons by averaged autofluorescence from the intestine area. The imaging conditions in Fig 4C and 4E are the same as those in Fig 3. The data for SNR of NLS-jGCaMP7s and NLS-NIR-GECO2 were quantified from spontaneously spiking neurons. SNR was calculated by dividing fluorescence change associated with a spike by the standard deviation (SD) of the baseline fluorescence over the 2-second period immediately before the spike. The imaging conditions in S9 Fig are the same as those in Fig 4.

Imaging of NIR-GECO2G in Xenopus laevis tadpoles

NIR-GECO2G and GCaMP6s were cloned into the pCS2+ vector and the plasmid was linearized with NotI. Capped mRNA of NIR-GECO2G and GCaMP6s was transcribed with the SP6 mMessageMachine Kit (Ambion, Thermo Fisher Scientific). The RNA (500 pg of each sample) was injected in 1 blastomere at the 2-cell stage resulting in animals expressing NIR-GECO2G and GCaMP6s protein in 1 lateral half of the animal. The animals were kept at 20°C until stage 47. Immediately before imaging, the tadpole was paralyzed with pancuronium bromide (1.5 mg/mL in 0.1× MSBH) and embedded in 1% low-melt agarose.

Light-sheet imaging was performed on a Zeiss Z1 located in the McGill Advanced BioImaging Facility. The instrument was equipped with a sCMOS camera (1920 × 1920 pixel PCO.Edge, Kelheim, Germany), excitation lasers with wavelengths of 488 nm (75-mW max. output) and 640 nm (50-mW max. output). For acquisition, we excited the sample with 10% intensity of each wavelength through 5× LSFM excitation objectives (NA = 0.1) resulting in a 4.53-μm thick light sheet. We utilized a water immersion objective for detection (Zeiss 10× PLAN APOCHROMAT, NA = 0.5, UV-VIS-IR, ND = 1.336), allowing the sample to be immersed in 0.1× MBSH. The fluorescence was directed via a dichroic mirror LBF 405/488/640 nm and filtered depending on the probe with 505- to 545-nm bandpass or 660-nm long-pass emission filters.

The imaging data (Fig 5) was acquired with 50-ms integration time and 2.39 seconds cycle time through the volume. The instrument has a short dead time to home the axial position leading to a scanning frequency of 3.0 seconds for the entire volume. The raw data were corrected for drift and rapid movement with the ImageJ plugin TurboReg [27]. The image in Fig 5A is a volume projection of a 45-μm thick volume capturing the spontaneous Ca2+ responses in the olfactory bulb. The cells were manually selected if they showed a spontaneous Ca2+ response as detected with both NIR-GECO2G and GCaMP6s (Fig 5B). The fluorescence response was measured as the mean fluorescence intensity per cell and normalized by Inorm = (Im-Imin)/(Imax-Imin). Im indicates the measured mean value per area and Imax and Imin the maximal and minimal value measured for the specific ROI. The normalized response of NIR-GECO2G and GCaMP6s of a cell is plotted over time in the graph in Fig 5C.

Data and image analysis

All images in the manuscript were processed and analyzed using either ImageJ (NIH) or NIS-Elements Advanced Research software (Nikon). Traces and graphs were generated using GraphPad prism 8, Origin (OriginLab, Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA), and Matlab. Data are presented as mean ± SD or mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) as indicated.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Spectral, photochemical, and biochemical properties of NIR-GECO2G, NIR-GECO2, and NIR-GECO1. NIR, near-infrared.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Sequence alignment of NIR-GECO2, NIR-GECO2G, and NIR-GECO1.

Single amino acid changes relative to NIR-GECO1 are highlighted with a magenta background. PAS domain, GAF domain, linkers, calmodulin, and RS20 are shown as light green, light blue, black, brown, and yellow, respectively. NIR, near-infrared.

(TIFF)

S2 Fig. Additional in vitro characterization of NIR-GECO variants.

(a) Ca2+ titration curves of NIR-GECO1, NIR-GECO2, and NIR-GECO2G (center values are the mean and error bars are SD; n = 3). (b) Photobleaching curves of NIR-GECO variants and mIRFP720 (n = 11, 11, 16, and 9 neurons for NIR-GECO1, NIR-GECO2, NIR-GECO2G, and miRFP720, respectively). Mean value (solid line) and SD (shaded areas) are shown. Cells were continuously illuminated with 631/28 nm at 80 mW/mm2 during the experiment. Images were taken every 5 seconds. (c) Representative fluorescence curves of NIR-GECO2G with different imaging rates with 631/28-nm excitation at 2.8 mW/mm2 (this is the excitation intensity that we used for wield-field imaging; exposure time: 100 ms). (d) Quantitative data for the photobleaching of NIR-GECO2G and NIR-GECO2 in cultured cells with the same imaging conditions as in c. Data are shown as mean ± SD (NIR-GECO2G: n = 70, 71, 62, and 45 cells for 1 Hz, 2 Hz, 5 Hz, and continuous illumination, respectively; NIR-GECO2: n = 26, 36, 35, and 35 cells for 1 Hz, 2 Hz, 5 Hz, and continuous illumination, respectively). (e) Brightness of NIR-GECO2G and NIR-GECO2G with co-expression of GCaMP6f in neurons (n = 34 and 56 for NIR-GECOG and NIR-GECO2G with GCaMP6f, respectively; data are shown as mean ± SD). The underlying data for a, b, d, and e can be found in S1 Data. NIR, near-infrared; SD, standard deviation.

(TIFF)

S3 Fig. Ca2+ indicator prototype based on miRFP.

The mIFP domain of NIR-GECO1 was replaced with miRFP using the same insertion point and linker sequences (i.e., CaM-RS20 was used to replace residues 170 to 177 of miFP or residues 172 to 179 of miRFP; S4 Fig). (a) Fluorescence emission spectra of the prototype miRFP-based Ca2+ indicator in the presence (5 mM Ca2+) and absence (10 mM EGTA) of Ca2+. (b) Intensity vs. time traces for transfected HeLa cells. Cells were treated with ionomycin/Ca2+ to increase cellular Ca2+ concentrations and ionomycin/EGTA to deplete cellular Ca2+. (c) Fluorescent images of miRFP-based Ca2+ indicator prototype at time points t1 to t3 (as denoted in b). Scale bar, 20 μm; λex = 650/60 nm and λem = 720/60 nm. Acquisition rate: 0.2 Hz. The underlying data for a and b can be found in S1 Data. In an effort to develop an improved NIR GECI, we found that the mIFP (engineered from PAS and GAF domain of Bradyrhizobium bacteriophytochrome) domain of NIR-GECO1 could be replaced with miRFP [12]. miRFP is another monomeric BV-FP that was derived from Rps. palustris bacteriophytochrome and shares 57% amino acid homology with mIFP (S3 and S4 Figs). In principle, the miRFP version on NIR-GECO1 could have served as a template for making improved NIR fluorescent Ca2+ indicators due to its higher brightness in mammalian cells relative to mIFP [12]. However, we decided to start our further directed evolution efforts from NIR-GECO1 for 2 reasons. The first reason is that NIR-GECO1 was already optimized and worked well in brain slices, and so starting from it might save time and be associated with a higher chance of success. The second reason is that overexpression of the miRFP-based Ca2+ indicator appeared to be toxic to bacteria, and it was challenging for us to incorporate the construct into the bacteria–HeLa screening system that we used for engineering NIR-GECO1 [8]. NIR, near-infrared.

(TIFF)

S4 Fig. Alignment of amino acid sequences of mIFP and miRFP.

Alignment numbering is based on mIFP. The structurally analogous residues between mIFP and mIRFP are highlighted in green. Residues that were replaced by CaM-RS20 to make NIR-GECO1, and the prototype mIRFP-based Ca2+ indicator, respectively, are in bold and red. NIR, near-infrared.

(TIFF)

S5 Fig. Testing for possible blue-light-activated photoconversion or photoactivation of NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G in HeLa cells.

(a, b) Averaged fluorescence traces of NIR-GECO2 (a, n = 8 cells) and NIR-GECO2G (b, n = 9 cells) in response to 100-ms blue light illumination. (c, d) Averaged fluorescence traces of NIR-GECO2 (c, n = 9 cells) and NIR-GECO2G (d, n = 11 cells) in response to 500-ms blue light illumination. Illumination: 470 nm at 6.2 mW/mm2, which is 3.3-fold higher than the intensity used for the experiments in Fig 2. The underlying data for a to d can be found in S1 Data. NIR, near-infrared.

(TIFF)

S6 Fig. Imaging of NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G in acute brain slices.

(a) Wide-field image of a mouse brain slice with co-expression of NIR-GECO2 and CoChR, fluorescence of NIR-GECO2 is shown (λex = 631/28 nm and λem = 664LP). Scale bar, 50 μm. (b) Fluorescence of NIR-GECO2 (acquisition rate 100 Hz) in response to 200-ms blue light stimulation (470/20 nm, 0.157 mW/mm2, indicated by blue bar). The numbers of the traces correspond to the neurons labeled in a. (c) Single-trial wide-field imaging of 4-aminopyridine (1 mM final concentration) evoked neuronal activity from the 2 representative neurons in brain slices expressing NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G, respectively (λex = 631/28 nm and λem = 664LP; acquisition rate: 10 Hz). NIR, near-infrared.

(TIFF)

S7 Fig. Ca2+ imaging in iPSC-CMs using NIR-GECO2G.

(a) Representative fluorescence recording of spontaneous and caffeine-evoked Ca2+ oscillations using NIR-GECO2G in iPSC-CMs. (b) Representative single-trial fluorescence recording of blue light-stimulated Ca2+ oscillations (470 nm at a power of 1.9 mW/mm2) using NIR-GECO2G in ChR2 expressed iPSC-CMs. iPSC-CM, induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocyte; NIR, near-infrared.

(TIFF)

S8 Fig. Imaging of C. elegans using NIR-GECO2, NIR-GECO2G, and jGCaMP7s.

(a) Representative confocal images of worms co-expressing NIR-GECO2-T2A-HO1 and NLS-jGCaMP7s (representative of more than 3 worms). Top, fluorescent image of neurons expressing NLS-jGCaMP7s (λex = 488-nm laser light, λem = 527/50 nm). Middle, fluorescent image of neurons expressing NIR-GECO2-T2A-HO1 (λex = 640-nm laser light, λem = 685/40 nm). Bottom, overlay image of green channel and NIR channel. Scale bar, 25 μm. (b) Spontaneous Ca2+ fluctuation of a representative worm neuron (indicated in a by a yellow arrow) co-expressing NIR-GECO2 and NLS-jGCaMP7s. Imaging conditions were identical to the experiments in a, acquisition rate: 2 Hz. (c) Representative spontaneous Ca2+ oscillations of worm neurons reported by NIR-GECO2 (acquisition rate 2 Hz). Imaging conditions were identical to the experiments in a. (d) Representative confocal images of worms co-expressing NLS-NIR-GECO2G-T2A-HO1 (left) and NLS-jGCaMP7s (right). Imaging conditions were identical to the experiments in a. Representative of more than 3 worms. Scale bar, 25 μm. NIR, near-infrared.

(TIFF)

S9 Fig. Representative images of worms co-expressing NLS-jGCaMP7s (a, λex = 488-nm laser light, λem = 527/50 nm) and NIR-GECO2 without co-expression of HO1 (b, λex = 640-nm laser light, λem = 664LP).

Scale bar, 25 μm; representative of n = 9 worms. NIR, near-infrared.

(TIFF)

S1 Video. (Associated to Fig 5).

Imaging of spontaneous neuronal activity with NIR-GECO2G in the olfactory bulb of Xenopus laevis.

(MP4)

S1 Data. Numerical data for Figs 1B–1E, 2, 3B, 3C and 3E and 4 and S2A, S2B, S2D, S2E, S3A and S3B and S5 Figs.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the University of Alberta Molecular Biology Services Unit for technical support. We thank Ahmed S. Abdelfattah from Janelia Research Campus for testing NIR-GECO variants and Panagiotis Symvoulidis from MIT for help with data analysis. We also thank Xian Xiao and Hongyun Tang from Westlake University for help with C. elegans imaging.

Abbreviations

ACSF

artificial cerebrospinal fluid

AP

action potential

ATR

All-trans-retinal

BV

biliverdin

Ca2+

calcium ion

CaM

calmodulin

ChR2

channelrhodopsin-2

DIV

days in vitro

EC

extinction coefficient

FBS

fetal bovine serum

GECI

genetically encoded calcium ion indicator

GFP

green fluorescent protein

HBSS

Hank’s Balanced Salt Solution

HO1

heme oxygenase-1

iPSC-CM

induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocyte

IUE

in utero electroporation

LB

Lysogeny broth

MEM

Minimum Essential Medium

NIR

near-infrared

QY

quantum yield

RFP

red fluorescent protein

SBR

signal-to-background ratio

SD

standard deviation

SEM

standard error of the mean

SNR

signal-to-noise ratio

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information. Plasmids pAAV-CAG-NIR-GECO2 (plasmid no. 159603), pAAV-NIR-GECO2G (plasmid no. 159605), and pSF11-wNIR-GECO2-T2A-HO1(plasmid no.159606) are available via Addgene according to the terms of the Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement.

Funding Statement

Work in the lab of R.E.C. was supported by grants from CIHR (MOP-123514 and FS-154310), NSERC (RGPIN 288338-2010 and 2018-04364), Brain Canada, and NIH (U01 NS094246 and UO1 NS090565). E.S.B. acknowledges Lisa Yang, John Doerr, the HHMI-Simons Faculty Scholars Program, the HHMI Investigator Program, U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation (2014509), NIH (2R01-DA029639, 1R01-MH12297101, 1R01-DA045549, and 1RF1-NS113287), Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0015/2016), and NSF (1848029 and 1734870). Work in the lab of E.S.R. was supported by grants from CIHR (FDN-143238) and Brain Canada. Work in the lab of P.W.W. was supported by a grant from NSERC (RGPIN-2017-05005). K.D.P. acknowledges the Foundation of Westlake University. S.A. thanks Conrad F. Harrington Fellowship from the faculty of medicine at the University of McGill. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Chen T-W, Wardill TJ, Sun Y, Pulver SR, Renninger SL, Baohan A, et al. Ultrasensitive fluorescent proteins for imaging neuronal activity. Nature. 2013;499:295–300. 10.1038/nature12354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dana H, Mohar B, Sun Y, Narayan S, Gordus A, Hasseman JP, et al. Sensitive red protein calcium indicators for imaging neural activity. Elife. 2016;5:e12727 10.7554/eLife.12727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dana H, Sun Y, Mohar B, Hulse BK, Kerlin AM, Hasseman JP, et al. High-performance calcium sensors for imaging activity in neuronal populations and microcompartments. Nat Methods. 2019;16:649–657. 10.1038/s41592-019-0435-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Inoue M, Takeuchi A, Manita S, Horigane S-I, Sakamoto M, Kawakami R, et al. Rational Engineering of XCaMPs, a Multicolor GECI Suite for In Vivo Imaging of Complex Brain Circuit Dynamics. Cell. 2019;177:1346–1360.e24. 10.1016/j.cell.2019.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Nagai T, Sawano A, Park ES, Miyawaki A. Circularly permuted green fluorescent proteins engineered to sense Ca2+. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:3197–3202. 10.1073/pnas.051636098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nakai J, Ohkura M, Imoto K. A high signal-to-noise Ca2+ probe composed of a single green fluorescent protein. Nat Biotechnol. 2001;19:137–141. 10.1038/84397 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Shen Y, Dana H, Abdelfattah AS, Patel R, Shea J, Molina RS, et al. A genetically encoded Ca2+ indicator based on circularly permutated sea anemone red fluorescent protein eqFP578. BMC Biol. 2018;16:9 10.1186/s12915-018-0480-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Qian Y, Piatkevich KD, Mc Larney B, Abdelfattah AS, Mehta S, Murdock MH, et al. A genetically encoded near-infrared fluorescent calcium ion indicator. Nat Methods. 2019;16:171–174. 10.1038/s41592-018-0294-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Subach OM, Barykina NV, Anokhin KV, Piatkevich KD, Subach FV. Near-Infrared Genetically Encoded Positive Calcium Indicator Based on GAF-FP Bacterial Phytochrome. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20 10.3390/ijms20143488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yu D, Baird MA, Allen JR, Howe ES, Klassen MP, Reade A, et al. A naturally monomeric infrared fluorescent protein for protein labeling in vivo. Nat Methods. 2015;12:763–765. 10.1038/nmeth.3447 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zhao Y, Araki S, Wu J, Teramoto T, Chang Y-F, Nakano M, et al. An expanded palette of genetically encoded Ca2+ indicators. Science. 2011;333:1888–1891. 10.1126/science.1208592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Piatkevich KD, Jung EE, Straub C, Linghu C, Park D, Suk H-J, et al. A robotic multidimensional directed evolution approach applied to fluorescent voltage reporters. Nat Chem Biol. 2018. 10.1038/s41589-018-0004-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shcherbakova DM, Cox Cammer N, Huisman TM, Verkhusha VV, Hodgson L. Direct multiplex imaging and optogenetics of Rho GTPases enabled by near-infrared FRET. Nat Chem Biol. 2018;14:591–600. 10.1038/s41589-018-0044-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kim JH, Lee S-R, Li L-H, Park H-J, Park J-H, Lee KY, et al. High cleavage efficiency of a 2A peptide derived from porcine teschovirus-1 in human cell lines, zebrafish and mice. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e18556 10.1371/journal.pone.0018556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wardill TJ, Chen T-W, Schreiter ER, Hasseman JP, Tsegaye G, Fosque BF, et al. A neuron-based screening platform for optimizing genetically-encoded calcium indicators. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e77728 10.1371/journal.pone.0077728 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.He L, Zhang Y, Ma G, Tan P, Li Z, Zang S, et al. Near-infrared photoactivatable control of Ca(2+) signaling and optogenetic immunomodulation. Elife. 2015;4 10.7554/eLife.10024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rao AU, Carta LK, Lesuisse E, Hamza I. Lack of heme synthesis in a free-living eukaryote. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:4270–4275. 10.1073/pnas.0500877102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ding W-L, Miao D, Hou Y-N, Jiang S-P, Zhao B-Q, Zhou M, et al. Small monomeric and highly stable near-infrared fluorescent markers derived from the thermophilic phycobiliprotein, ApcF2. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res. 2017;1864:1877–1886. 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2017.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Yu D, Gustafson WC, Han C, Lafaye C, Noirclerc-Savoye M, Ge W-P, et al. An improved monomeric infrared fluorescent protein for neuronal and tumour brain imaging. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3626 10.1038/ncomms4626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chronis N, Zimmer M, Bargmann CI. Microfluidics for in vivo imaging of neuronal and behavioral activity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat Methods. 2007;4:727–731. 10.1038/nmeth1075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Klapoetke NC, Murata Y, Kim SS, Pulver SR, Birdsey-Benson A, Cho YK, et al. Independent optical excitation of distinct neural populations. Nat Methods. 2014;11:338–346. 10.1038/nmeth.2836 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kobachi K, Kuno S, Sato S, Sumiyama K, Matsuda M, Terai K. Biliverdin Reductase-A Deficiency Brighten and Sensitize Biliverdin-binding Chromoproteins. Cell Struct Funct. 2020;45:131–141. 10.1247/csf.20010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gambetta GA, Lagarias JC. Genetic engineering of phytochrome biosynthesis in bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10566–10571. 10.1073/pnas.191375198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rodriguez EA, Tran GN, Gross LA, Crisp JL, Shu X, Lin JY, et al. A far-red fluorescent protein evolved from a cyanobacterial phycobiliprotein. Nat Methods. 2016;13:763 10.1038/nmeth.3935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jiang M, Chen G. High Ca2+-phosphate transfection efficiency in low-density neuronal cultures. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:695–700. 10.1038/nprot.2006.86 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Brenner S. The genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 1974;77:71–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Thévenaz P, Ruttimann UE, Unser M. A pyramid approach to subpixel registration based on intensity. IEEE Trans Image Process. 1998;7:27–41. 10.1109/83.650848 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gabriel Gasque

17 Apr 2020

Dear Dr Campbell,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Improved genetically encoded near-infrared fluorescent calcium ion indicators for in vivo imaging" for consideration as a Methods and Resources article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Apr 21 2020 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, please expect delays in the editorial process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Gabriel Gasque, Ph.D.,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Decision Letter 1

Gabriel Gasque

4 Jun 2020

Dear Dr Campbell,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Improved genetically encoded near-infrared fluorescent calcium ion indicators for in vivo imaging" for consideration as a Methods and Resources article at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, by an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by three independent reviewers.

In light of the reviews (below), we will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome re-submission of a much-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 2 months.

Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. As you will see, the reviewers are overall very supportive. However, reviewers 2 and 3 indicate that additional experiments and controls would provide very useful information to the community. Considering this is a Resource, and having discussed these requests with the Academic Editor, we think that to strengthen the utility of these probes, you should address these points with additional data.

Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point by point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually, point by point.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type.

*Re-submission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this re-submission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Gasque, Ph.D.,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

*****************************************************

REVIEWS:

Reviewer #1: In general, compared to the conventional fluorescent calcium ion optogenetic tools and indicators functioned under visible wavelength light irradiation, the NIR genetically-encoded counterparts provide great advantages of reduced light toxicity, less background cross-talk with visible-light as well as decreased scattering and absorption in mammalian tissues. However, several disadvantages including lower brightness and limited fluorescence response remained the concerns to hamper their further applications for imaging of neuronal activity in vitro and in vitro. To overcome these technical barriers, in this study, qiao and co-authors genetically encoded two ca2+ indicators, NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G, to provide substantial improvements of neuronal imaging of Ca2+ dynamics in cultured cells, mouse brain slices, and C. elegans and Xenopus laevis in vivo. Even though some new challenges like less brightness, slower kinetics, and faster photobleaching still need to be further improved. Apparently, the authors have carried out extensive experiments and the manuscript has been well prepared. The referee thus supports the publication of this interesting study in Plos Biology as the current stage.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript by the Campbell lab (Qian et al), the authors described new variants of genetically encoded near-IR Ca2+ indicator NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO-2G. Compared to previously developed NIR-GECO1, there was not significant improvement in brightness or photo-stability, but they have 2-4 fold higher affinity to Ca2+. This increased dF / Fo of Ca2+ signals in neurons by 2-3 times. They showed that the new reagents are useful for Ca2+ imaging in acute slices, as well as in vivo imaging in C-elegans or Xenopus Laevis.

Overall the improvement in Ca2+ sensitivity seems to be significant, and thus the reagent should be useful for the community. One significant concern is the lack of control experiments for the photo-conversion by blue light illumination (Fig. 2). Since they used channel rhodopsin to test the sensitivity of NIR-GECO in these experiments, I think it is important to report to what degree NIR-GECO shows photo-conversion by blue light. For the community, the degree of compatibility with channel rhodopsin would be a great interest too.

Reviewer #3: Qian et al. reported development and in vivo demonstration of two improved near-infrared fluorescence calcium indicators. Compared to the parent sensor, NIR-GECO1, these two variants displayed increased affinity to calcium and about 3 to 4-fold higher ∆F/F in response to single-field stimuli in dissociated neuronal culture or light-stimuli (100ms) in the brain slice. Other intrinsic properties remain similar to NIR-GECO1. The improved sensitivity permitted populational imaging of optogenetically triggered or spontaneous neuronal activity in c.elegans and in Xenopus laevis, thus representing a substantial improvement compared to NIR-GECO1.

The scope and novelty are appropriate to PLOS Biology. However, the authors should address/discuss a few points about in vivo utility of these sensors.

1. One of potential advantages using NIR-based probes is the depth penetration. In Fig 3 and 4, the authors nicely demonstrated calcium signals detected by NIR-GECO. It will significantly strengthen the utility of these probes if the authors compare the signal-to-noise ratio of NIR-GECO and jGCaMP/GCaMP and 3D volume/optical dissection depth possibly increased by using longer-wavelength.

2. The photostability is a major barrier for red-shifted calcium indicators. What is the highest acquisition rate of recording permitted without significant photobleaching, 2Hz? Can the same neuronal population be imaged repeatedly without significant photobleaching?

3. In Fig 3, the authors co-expressed HO1 to enhance the BV level in neurons. However, the authors did not mention the fold-increase in terms of brightness without HO1 co-expression.

4. It is not clear whether co-expression with jRCaMP or GCaMP6s would influence the expression level of NIR-GECO2/2G. In Fig 3a and 4b, the express patterns of two sensors are not exactly the same. Can authors clarify whether co-expression of another sensor would influence the expression and performance of NIR-GECO?

5. In Fig 3b and Fig 4c, the waveform of jGCaMP7 or GCaMP6s is not exactly the same with that of NIR-GECO2. For example, there is a mall transient right before the third puff of NaCl detected by jGCaMP7, but not by NIR-GECO2. Is this due to the sensitivity of the sensor. In Fig 4c, the fluorescence signal of NIR-GECO2G seems to lag behind GCaMP6s. it requires some discussion about the discrepancy of calcium signals detected by different sensors.

6. As there is no in vivo demonstration in rodent, I assume it remains challenging to image neuronal activity with NIR-GECO2 in rodents. Can the authors discuss the challenges/limitations preventing the use of these variants in rodents?

7. The authors nicely demonstrated that the sensor can be targeted to nucleus in Fig 3. Though it may not be useful for in vivo imaging, it will be useful to use 2 or 3 colors to detect calcium transients in various subcellular locations. This could be a good discussion point about usefulness of these probes.

Decision Letter 2

Gabriel Gasque

3 Oct 2020

Dear Dr Campbell,

Thank you for submitting your revised Methods and Resources article entitled "Improved genetically encoded near-infrared fluorescent calcium ion indicators for in vivo imaging" for publication in PLOS Biology. I have now obtained advice from the original reviewers 2 and 3 and have discussed their comments with the Academic Editor. You will note that reviewer 3, Lin Tian, has revealed her identity. Please accept my apologies for the delay in communicating this decision to you.

We're delighted to let you know that we're now editorially satisfied with your manuscript. However before we can formally accept your paper and consider it "in press", we also need to ensure that your article conforms to our guidelines. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of requests. As we can't proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication. Please also make sure to address the data and other policy-related requests noted at the end of this email.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable

- a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable)

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

*Copyediting*

Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Gasque, Ph.D.,

Senior Editor,

ggasque@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ETHICS STATEMENT:

-- Please include in your manuscript the ID numbers of the protocols approved by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Committee on Animal Care and by the the Montreal Neurological Institute Animal Care Committee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask for all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

These data can be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels: Figures 1b-e, 2a-d, 3bce, 4a-e, S2abde, S3ab, and S5a-d.

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

Please also ensure that each figure legend in your manuscript includes information on where the underlying data can be found and that your supplemental data file/s has/have a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLOT AND GEL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare and upload them now. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer remarks:

Reviewer #2: All concerns are addressed.

Reviewer #3, Lin Tian: The authors have thoroughly addressed my conners. I believe NIR-GECO2 is a valuable tool to the field and should be published and disseminated asap.

Decision Letter 3

Gabriel Gasque

29 Oct 2020

Dear Dr Campbell,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Polina V. Lishko, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Methods and Resources in PLOS Biology.

PRODUCTION PROCESS

Before publication you will see the copyedited word document (within 5 business days) and a PDF proof shortly after that. The copyeditor will be in touch shortly before sending you the copyedited Word document. We will make some revisions at copyediting stage to conform to our general style, and for clarification. When you receive this version you should check and revise it very carefully, including figures, tables, references, and supporting information, because corrections at the next stage (proofs) will be strictly limited to (1) errors in author names or affiliations, (2) errors of scientific fact that would cause misunderstandings to readers, and (3) printer's (introduced) errors. Please return the copyedited file within 2 business days in order to ensure timely delivery of the PDF proof.

If you are likely to be away when either this document or the proof is sent, please ensure we have contact information of a second person, as we will need you to respond quickly at each point. Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there may be delays in the production process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

EARLY VERSION

The version of your manuscript submitted at the copyedit stage will be posted online ahead of the final proof version, unless you have already opted out of the process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process.

Kind regards,

Vita Usova

Publication Editor,

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Gabriel Gasque,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Spectral, photochemical, and biochemical properties of NIR-GECO2G, NIR-GECO2, and NIR-GECO1. NIR, near-infrared.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. Sequence alignment of NIR-GECO2, NIR-GECO2G, and NIR-GECO1.

    Single amino acid changes relative to NIR-GECO1 are highlighted with a magenta background. PAS domain, GAF domain, linkers, calmodulin, and RS20 are shown as light green, light blue, black, brown, and yellow, respectively. NIR, near-infrared.

    (TIFF)

    S2 Fig. Additional in vitro characterization of NIR-GECO variants.

    (a) Ca2+ titration curves of NIR-GECO1, NIR-GECO2, and NIR-GECO2G (center values are the mean and error bars are SD; n = 3). (b) Photobleaching curves of NIR-GECO variants and mIRFP720 (n = 11, 11, 16, and 9 neurons for NIR-GECO1, NIR-GECO2, NIR-GECO2G, and miRFP720, respectively). Mean value (solid line) and SD (shaded areas) are shown. Cells were continuously illuminated with 631/28 nm at 80 mW/mm2 during the experiment. Images were taken every 5 seconds. (c) Representative fluorescence curves of NIR-GECO2G with different imaging rates with 631/28-nm excitation at 2.8 mW/mm2 (this is the excitation intensity that we used for wield-field imaging; exposure time: 100 ms). (d) Quantitative data for the photobleaching of NIR-GECO2G and NIR-GECO2 in cultured cells with the same imaging conditions as in c. Data are shown as mean ± SD (NIR-GECO2G: n = 70, 71, 62, and 45 cells for 1 Hz, 2 Hz, 5 Hz, and continuous illumination, respectively; NIR-GECO2: n = 26, 36, 35, and 35 cells for 1 Hz, 2 Hz, 5 Hz, and continuous illumination, respectively). (e) Brightness of NIR-GECO2G and NIR-GECO2G with co-expression of GCaMP6f in neurons (n = 34 and 56 for NIR-GECOG and NIR-GECO2G with GCaMP6f, respectively; data are shown as mean ± SD). The underlying data for a, b, d, and e can be found in S1 Data. NIR, near-infrared; SD, standard deviation.

    (TIFF)

    S3 Fig. Ca2+ indicator prototype based on miRFP.

    The mIFP domain of NIR-GECO1 was replaced with miRFP using the same insertion point and linker sequences (i.e., CaM-RS20 was used to replace residues 170 to 177 of miFP or residues 172 to 179 of miRFP; S4 Fig). (a) Fluorescence emission spectra of the prototype miRFP-based Ca2+ indicator in the presence (5 mM Ca2+) and absence (10 mM EGTA) of Ca2+. (b) Intensity vs. time traces for transfected HeLa cells. Cells were treated with ionomycin/Ca2+ to increase cellular Ca2+ concentrations and ionomycin/EGTA to deplete cellular Ca2+. (c) Fluorescent images of miRFP-based Ca2+ indicator prototype at time points t1 to t3 (as denoted in b). Scale bar, 20 μm; λex = 650/60 nm and λem = 720/60 nm. Acquisition rate: 0.2 Hz. The underlying data for a and b can be found in S1 Data. In an effort to develop an improved NIR GECI, we found that the mIFP (engineered from PAS and GAF domain of Bradyrhizobium bacteriophytochrome) domain of NIR-GECO1 could be replaced with miRFP [12]. miRFP is another monomeric BV-FP that was derived from Rps. palustris bacteriophytochrome and shares 57% amino acid homology with mIFP (S3 and S4 Figs). In principle, the miRFP version on NIR-GECO1 could have served as a template for making improved NIR fluorescent Ca2+ indicators due to its higher brightness in mammalian cells relative to mIFP [12]. However, we decided to start our further directed evolution efforts from NIR-GECO1 for 2 reasons. The first reason is that NIR-GECO1 was already optimized and worked well in brain slices, and so starting from it might save time and be associated with a higher chance of success. The second reason is that overexpression of the miRFP-based Ca2+ indicator appeared to be toxic to bacteria, and it was challenging for us to incorporate the construct into the bacteria–HeLa screening system that we used for engineering NIR-GECO1 [8]. NIR, near-infrared.

    (TIFF)

    S4 Fig. Alignment of amino acid sequences of mIFP and miRFP.

    Alignment numbering is based on mIFP. The structurally analogous residues between mIFP and mIRFP are highlighted in green. Residues that were replaced by CaM-RS20 to make NIR-GECO1, and the prototype mIRFP-based Ca2+ indicator, respectively, are in bold and red. NIR, near-infrared.

    (TIFF)

    S5 Fig. Testing for possible blue-light-activated photoconversion or photoactivation of NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G in HeLa cells.

    (a, b) Averaged fluorescence traces of NIR-GECO2 (a, n = 8 cells) and NIR-GECO2G (b, n = 9 cells) in response to 100-ms blue light illumination. (c, d) Averaged fluorescence traces of NIR-GECO2 (c, n = 9 cells) and NIR-GECO2G (d, n = 11 cells) in response to 500-ms blue light illumination. Illumination: 470 nm at 6.2 mW/mm2, which is 3.3-fold higher than the intensity used for the experiments in Fig 2. The underlying data for a to d can be found in S1 Data. NIR, near-infrared.

    (TIFF)

    S6 Fig. Imaging of NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G in acute brain slices.

    (a) Wide-field image of a mouse brain slice with co-expression of NIR-GECO2 and CoChR, fluorescence of NIR-GECO2 is shown (λex = 631/28 nm and λem = 664LP). Scale bar, 50 μm. (b) Fluorescence of NIR-GECO2 (acquisition rate 100 Hz) in response to 200-ms blue light stimulation (470/20 nm, 0.157 mW/mm2, indicated by blue bar). The numbers of the traces correspond to the neurons labeled in a. (c) Single-trial wide-field imaging of 4-aminopyridine (1 mM final concentration) evoked neuronal activity from the 2 representative neurons in brain slices expressing NIR-GECO2 and NIR-GECO2G, respectively (λex = 631/28 nm and λem = 664LP; acquisition rate: 10 Hz). NIR, near-infrared.

    (TIFF)

    S7 Fig. Ca2+ imaging in iPSC-CMs using NIR-GECO2G.

    (a) Representative fluorescence recording of spontaneous and caffeine-evoked Ca2+ oscillations using NIR-GECO2G in iPSC-CMs. (b) Representative single-trial fluorescence recording of blue light-stimulated Ca2+ oscillations (470 nm at a power of 1.9 mW/mm2) using NIR-GECO2G in ChR2 expressed iPSC-CMs. iPSC-CM, induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocyte; NIR, near-infrared.

    (TIFF)

    S8 Fig. Imaging of C. elegans using NIR-GECO2, NIR-GECO2G, and jGCaMP7s.

    (a) Representative confocal images of worms co-expressing NIR-GECO2-T2A-HO1 and NLS-jGCaMP7s (representative of more than 3 worms). Top, fluorescent image of neurons expressing NLS-jGCaMP7s (λex = 488-nm laser light, λem = 527/50 nm). Middle, fluorescent image of neurons expressing NIR-GECO2-T2A-HO1 (λex = 640-nm laser light, λem = 685/40 nm). Bottom, overlay image of green channel and NIR channel. Scale bar, 25 μm. (b) Spontaneous Ca2+ fluctuation of a representative worm neuron (indicated in a by a yellow arrow) co-expressing NIR-GECO2 and NLS-jGCaMP7s. Imaging conditions were identical to the experiments in a, acquisition rate: 2 Hz. (c) Representative spontaneous Ca2+ oscillations of worm neurons reported by NIR-GECO2 (acquisition rate 2 Hz). Imaging conditions were identical to the experiments in a. (d) Representative confocal images of worms co-expressing NLS-NIR-GECO2G-T2A-HO1 (left) and NLS-jGCaMP7s (right). Imaging conditions were identical to the experiments in a. Representative of more than 3 worms. Scale bar, 25 μm. NIR, near-infrared.

    (TIFF)

    S9 Fig. Representative images of worms co-expressing NLS-jGCaMP7s (a, λex = 488-nm laser light, λem = 527/50 nm) and NIR-GECO2 without co-expression of HO1 (b, λex = 640-nm laser light, λem = 664LP).

    Scale bar, 25 μm; representative of n = 9 worms. NIR, near-infrared.

    (TIFF)

    S1 Video. (Associated to Fig 5).

    Imaging of spontaneous neuronal activity with NIR-GECO2G in the olfactory bulb of Xenopus laevis.

    (MP4)

    S1 Data. Numerical data for Figs 1B–1E, 2, 3B, 3C and 3E and 4 and S2A, S2B, S2D, S2E, S3A and S3B and S5 Figs.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: NIR-GECO2 respond to reviewer comments V2.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the requirements from Editor.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information. Plasmids pAAV-CAG-NIR-GECO2 (plasmid no. 159603), pAAV-NIR-GECO2G (plasmid no. 159605), and pSF11-wNIR-GECO2-T2A-HO1(plasmid no.159606) are available via Addgene according to the terms of the Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement.


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES