When running experiments using the MTT or the FOMT, a number of choices need to be made regarding beads, magnets, tracking protocols, etc. The best choices to be made will depend on the experiment of interest. Below, we describe the trade-offs that accompany different choices, which should facilitate selection for a particular experiment. Next, we describe several critical steps that accompany the alignment and running of MTT and FOMT experiments. Lastly, we discuss the significance of the MTT and FOMT with respect to existing methods as well as future applications.
Considerations Prior to the Start of MTT and FOMT Experiments
Any experiment requires one to select a type of magnetic bead for use. One can select between several commercially-available streptavidin-coated superparamagnetic beads, e.g., 0.25 μm radius beads, 0.5 μm radius beads, or 1.4 μm radius beads (see the Materials table). Larger beads will have an increased magnetic moment compared to smaller beads (roughly scaling as the volume) and therefore their use will facilitate the application of higher forces (for typical forces achieved in our instruments, see Table 1). When angular tracking using marker beads is desired, we typically work with 1.4 μm radius and use 0.5 μm radius non-magnetic biotinylated beads as marker beads (see paragraph 1.9 for the corresponding attachment protocol). The use of smaller beads is particularly recommended for the FOMT, as the characteristic timescale for bead rotation τC equals the ratio of the system's drag over its spring constant γ/kθ; importantly, the rotational drag coefficient relevant for the angular measurement time scale scales as ~ Rbead3, i.e. with the third power of the radius (see Table 2 for the characteristic time scales for several bead-DNA combinations in FOMT and MTT measurements). Accompanying reductions in the maximum force that can be applied can be addressed by using a flipped stack of cylindrical magnets27. Nonetheless, in FOMT measurements it may sometimes be necessary to compromise between the best achievable temporal resolution and the maximum applied force.
Additionally, an experiment requires the selection of a magnet configuration. In the conventional magnetic tweezers configuration (Figure 1a), we typically use a pair of 5x5x5 mm cubic magnets in vertical orientation with a 0.5 or 1 mm gap between the magnets4. When the magnets are spaced along the x (y) axis, this yields a magnetic field that is primarily directed along the x (y) axis. For FOMT experiments, a cylindrically-shaped magnet is selected at whose center the magnetic field is primarily directed along the z axis (Figure 1b). In practice, we use a stack of three such cylindrically-shaped magnets, each with a diameter of 6 mm and a 2 mm diameter central hole, for a total thickness of 6 mm. When higher pulling forces are desired, a "flipped stack" magnet configuration in which the bottom magnet is stacked with opposite magnetization is preferred. To achieve the MTT configuration (Figure 1c), we add an additional magnet to the side of the main magnet stack of the FOMT configuration, typically a solid cylinder with 4 mm diameter and a height of 7 mm. To see how the maximal forces achieved in our instruments depend on the magnet configuration, see Table 1.
The Alignment of MTT and FOMT Experiments
Since magnetic beads have an (approximately) uniformly functionalized surface (typically streptavidin) and since the attachment of both the functionalized nucleic acid tethers and marker beads (in case the marker bead-based angular tracking is employed) occurs via simple incubation in solution, one does not control where the tether and/or marker bead attach to the magnetic bead. The magnetic beads have a preferred magnetization axis that tends to align along the direction of the external field. If we denote the points where the preferred magnetization axis intersects the bead's surface as the north and south poles, then beads where the DNA-tether is attached close to the equator will trace out a circular annulus with a radius close to or slightly larger than the bead radius in the FOMT; in contrast, beads that are attached close to the south pole will fluctuate on a circular annulus with very small radius in the FOMT, which can preclude fitting of the circle using Equations 3-5. We note that by simple spherical geometry, the probability of attaching near the equator is much larger than an attachment exactly at the poles; therefore, most beads will be tethered such that the (x,y)-based angular tracking can be carried out successfully.
A similar argument holds for the attachment of the marker beads for the fiducial marker based angular tracking. The marker bead is used to create an asymmetry in the image of the magnetic bead that enables angle tracking. If the marker bead is attached exactly at the north or south pole of the bead (i.e. directly on top or on the bottom), the resulting image is still rotationally symmetric and the angular tracking protocol fails. However, by the same spherical geometry argument, the chance for a marker bead to attach directly at one of the poles is relatively small; we find that in practice most marker beads give a sufficient asymmetry to enable angular tracking. Finally, we note that in the conventional magnetic tweezers the field direction is in the (x,y)-plane; therefore, the preferred magnetization axis of the bead will align in the (x,y)-plane and the north and south poles, as defined above, are going to be at the sides of the bead, unlikely the situation in the FOMT or MTT, where the poles are at the top and bottom.
In FOMT experiments, a critical step is the alignment of the cylindrical magnet such that the radial magnetic field is negligible in proximity to the bead. This alignment is performed for a single bead at a time. To judge whether bead motion in the FOMT is evenly distributed over a circular annulus, the measurement time should exceed 20·τC. As τC equals ~45 sec for 8 kbp DNA and a 0.5 mm radius bead, the measurement time is ~900 sec in the final stages of alignment. For comparison, use of 1.9 kbp DNA and 0.25 mm radius beads reduces τC twenty-fold to ~2 sec (see also Table 2).
Critical Steps and Considerations for Tracking During FOMT and MTT Experiments
To track the bead's in-plane fluctuations, i.e. its (x,y)-position, we employ a cross-correlation analysis of the intensity profiles displayed by a bead at subsequent time intervals35,36. This can be carried out at sub-pixel resolution to an accuracy of a few nanometers20. To track the bead's motion in z, we typically use a method first designed by Gosse and Croquette, in which the objective's focal plane (OFP) is accurately shifted in the vertical direction while imaging the diffraction rings of the bead attached to the nucleic acid20. In this manner, a calibration profile is generated correlating the diffraction pattern of the bead to the distance between the bead and the OFP19. When this calibration profile is interpolated, the vertical displacements of the bead can be also measured with an accuracy of up to a few nm20. We refer the reader to additional references that describe more refined tracking algorithms37,38 as well as their application to parallel tracking of multiple beads5,6,37.
When using angular tracking that relies on the conversion of (x,y)-positions into angular coordinates, we advise to proceed as follows. From a time trace in which the bead traces out a circular annulus, use the (xi ,yi) positions (where the index i denotes subsequent measurement points) to fit the circle center (x0, y0) and radius Rcircle (Figure 2a) by minimizing:
(3)
where the sum runs over all data points. After fitting x0, y0, and Rcircle, determine the polar coordinates (ri ,θi) of each data point in the time trace using:
(4)
(5)
Note that one should take care to "unwrap" the angle θ, i.e. to add phase jumps of ±π where appropriate. Custom-written code for the fitting and conversion from (x,y) to (r, θ) coordinates is available from the authors upon request. In the FOMT, a time trace in which the bead traces out a circular annulus can be obtained by achieving coarse alignment (cf. step 3.3) and recording the thermal fluctuations of the bead. In the MTT, thermal fluctuations are insufficient to trace out the circular annulus; instead, use a time trace where the magnets are slowly (typically at 0.1 Hz) rotated by several turns to fit the circle using Equations 3-5.
We note that for the MTT, it is important to choose the proper angular tracking approach, i.e. via an angular tracking marker (Figure 1c, Figure 1d, Figure 3a) or via the conversion of (x,y)-positions into angular coordinates (Figure 1d, Figure 2b). While typically the accuracies of the angular tracking from (x,y)-positions and the use of marker beads are comparable, it is important to realize that crosstalk occurs between a bead's fluctuations in (x,y) and in angle, as described in Janssen et al32: thus, angular tracking from (x,y)-positions is only valid provided that the Brownian fluctuations in (x,y) contribute only negligibly to the uncertainty in the angular coordinate, and its proper use of (x,y)-tracking may require tuning of the rotational trap stiffness via adjustment of the position of the side magnet. Typically, the use of higher trap stiffness requires the use of angular tracking using marker beads. The use of marker beads requires an additional attachment step, which may reduce the number of usable tethers (see the attachment protocol in step 1.9). When using the marker bead-based tracking, it is important to select magnetic beads which have a marker bead is attached near the equator for best results.
Significance of the FOMT and MTT Approaches Compared to Existing Methods and Applications
In the above, we have shown how one can, starting from conventional MT, easily modify the magnet configurations to convert the instrument into MTT or FOMT. This straightforward modification, which may be accompanied by the introduction of angular tracking when the use of an angular tracking marker is desired, is an immediate strong point of both configurations, as it permits the user to apply torque, measure torque, or measure twist depending on the experiment at hand. As mentioned in the Introduction, both FOMT and MTT benefit from many of the existing strengths of MT, notably their simplicity, with the MTT in particular also benefiting from the capability of parallel measurements5,6 (these are not as easily achieved in FOMT given the requirement of alignment of the tether with respect to the center of the cylindrical magnet). Notably, MTT and FOMT do not require, in contrast with other techniques, specially nano-fabricated particles22,39,40, complex optical design41, or the introduction of additional beads within the tethered (DNA) molecule42. Such other techniques may nonetheless provide other advantages such as higher temporal resolution27,43,44. Both FOMT and MTT should find future applications in the study of genome processing, as the behavior of molecular motors on DNA is both influenced by and has consequences for the local twist and torque. Additional applications can be found in the emerging field of DNA nanotechnology27 or in the wider field of rotary motors active in biological processing7,45.
| M270 (Rbead = 1.4 µm) | MyOne (Rbead = 0.5 µm) | Ademtech (Rbead = 0.25 µm) |
| Conventional MT (pair of cubic 5 x 5 x 5 mm3 magnets, 1 mm gap, vertical alignment) | 70 pN | 8 pN | 1.6 pN |
| FOMT or MTT* (stack of three cylindrical magnets, 6 mm diameter, 2 mm diameter gap) | 9 pN | 1 pN | 0.2 pN |
| FOMT or MTT* (stack of three cylindrical magnets, 6 mm diameter, 1 mm diameter gap) | 18 pN | 2 pN | 0.4 pN |
| FOMT or MTT* (stack of three cylindrical magnets with last one flipped, 1 mm diameter gap) | ~50 pN | 9 pN | 1.8 pN |
*The presence of the small side magnet in the MTT has a negligible effect on the stretching force
Table 1. Maximum forces typically achieved for different magnet configurations and bead types.
| Rbead = 1.4 µm | Rbead = 0.5 µm | Rbead = 0.25 µm |
| Friction coefficient* | 120 pN·nm·sec | 5.5 pN·nm·sec | 0.7 pN·nm·sec |
| Characteristic time scale: FOMT, 10 kbp DNA** | 1200 sec | 55 sec | 7 sec |
| Characteristic time scale: FOMT, 1 kbp DNA | 120 sec | 5.5 sec | 0.7 sec |
| Characteristic time scale: MTT, kq = 100 pN·nm/rad | 1.2 sec | 0.06 sec | 0.007 sec |
| Characteristic time scale: MTT, kq = 1000 pN·nm/rad | 0.12 sec | 0.006 sec = 6 msec | 0.0007 s = 0.7 msec |
*Friction coefficient for rotation about an axis through the "equator" (i.e. the situation shown in Figure 1b), given by 14·p·h·Rbead3, where h is the viscosity of the buffer.
**In the FOMT, the rotational trap stiffness is given by the torsional stiffness of the DNA, kq,DNA = C·kBT/LC, where C is the effective torsional persistence length, assumed to be 80 nm here (which is characteristic of an intermediate force regime, F ~ 1 pN) and LC is the contour length of DNA, 0.34 nm per base pair.
Table 2. Friction coefficients and characteristic time scales for FOMT and MTT.