Dr. Periasamy,

Could you explain in further detail the reasons for why this work was  
considered controversial at the time? Is it simply because no  
explanation of what this mysterious additional energy transfer  
pathway is was given? What are you thoughts on the interpretation of  
the data presented? How does the conclusion affect the average person  
doing a FRET imaging experiment (if at all)?

John Oreopoulos


On 30-Nov-09, at 11:06 AM, Periasamy, Ammasi (ap3t) wrote:

> Dear Friends
> I just wanted to inform you that Dr. Steven Vogel, NIH, just  
> published a paper on his studies of FRET with multiple FP acceptors  
> in PLoS ONE. The manuscript can be accessed at:
>
>  http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008031
>
> As the results Dr. Vogel present in this manuscript have been  
> controversial when he presented them at several meetings, posters,  
> and with reviewers, would like to inform you about a unique feature  
> of PLoS ONE, readers can post comment, blog, etc. on the published  
> manuscripts by clicking on the metrics tab on the top of the  
> article web page (directly below the title). It is Dr. Vogel’s  
> hope, and one of the reasons he decided to publish this study in  
> PLoS ONE, that he can generate a scientific dialog on this aspect  
> of FRET, and on his curious and mysterious observations.
>
> Happy Holidays!
>
> Ammasi Periasamy, Ph.D.
> Director, Keck Center for Cellular Imaging (KCCI)
> Professor of Biology and Biomedical Engineering
> Biology, Gilmer Hall (064), McCormick Rd
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22904
> Voice: 434-243-7602 (Office); 982-4869 (lab)
> Fax:434-982-5210; Email:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu
> ************************
> Workshop on FRET Microscopy, March 9-13, 2010
> http://www.kcci.virginia.edu/workshop/workshop2010/index.php
> *************************
>
>