Luminescence Resonance Energy Transfer (LRET) is a derivative of the well-known Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) technique1. Similar to FRET, LRET can be used to measure distances and distance changes between donor and acceptor fluorophores attached to specific sites on the protein of interest within the range of 10-100 Å1-3. The principles of LRET are also similar to FRET in that resonance energy transfer occurs between two proximal fluorophores when the emission spectrum of the donor fluorophore overlaps with the absorption spectrum of the acceptor fluorophore. The efficiency of this transfer is related to the distance between the two fluorophores by the following equation:
Eq. 1
where R is the distance between the two fluorophores, E is the efficiency of energy transfer, and R0, discussed below, is the Förster radius for the fluorophore pair, i.e. the distance at which efficiency of transfer is half-maximal. From this equation, one can see that efficiency is related to the magnitude of the distance raised to the inverse sixth power1. It is this inverse sixth power dependence that allows for FRET and LRET measurements to be exquisitely sensitive even to small distance changes when near the R0 of the FRET pair. The ability to specifically label desired sites on proteins or other macromolecules allows one to take advantage of this sensitivity to monitor conformational changes.
When compared to FRET, which uses conventional organic dye molecules, LRET offers additional advantages. In LRET, instead of using an organic dye as the donor fluorophore, a lanthanide series cation, typically Tb3+ or Eu3+, is used1,4-6. Fluorophores that fall under this category, e.g., terbium chelate, are also very versatile in that they can be used with a wide range of acceptor fluorophores. This flexibility is made possible because the emission spectra of chelated lanthanides contain multiple sharp emission peaks, allowing for a single species of donor fluorophore to be used with one of a wide variety of acceptor fluorophores. Thus, sensitized acceptor emission can be detected without any fear of contaminating bleed-through from donor emission5. The experimenter selects the specific acceptor based on the expected distance between the two fluorophores (Figure 1 and Table 1). In these chelated lanthanide fluorophores, the metal ion is chelated by a molecule that contains an antenna group that sensitizes the normally poorly-absorbing lanthanide to excitation as well as a bioreactive functional group to tether the ion to a specific functional group on the macromolecule1,5,6. Once excited, lanthanides relax to the ground state via the release of photons with a decay rate in the millisecond range. Because the decay is neither a singlet-to-singlet relaxation nor a triplet-to-singlet relaxation, the emission of photons cannot properly be called fluorescence or phosphorescence, but is more properly termed luminescence1. The long decay of lanthanide luminescence greatly helps in lifetime measurements. Lifetime measurements can then be used to determine efficiency via the following relation:
Eq. 2
where, E is the efficiency of transfer, τD is the lifetime of the donor (chelated lanthanide) when not participating in energy transfer, and τDA is the lifetime of the donor when participating in energy transfer with the acceptor. With LRET, τDA can also be measured as the lifetime of the sensitized acceptor emission because terbium’s lifetime is so much greater than an organic acceptor fluorophore. The acceptor emits with the same lifetime as its inciting excitation (donor lanthanide), and any contribution to the lifetime from the acceptor’s own intrinsic fluorescence lifetime is relatively negligible. By measuring the sensitized emission rather than donor emission, we also eliminate the need to ensure labeling at exactly a 1:1 ratio of donor to acceptor. Protein can instead be labeled simultaneously with both acceptor and donor fluorophores. A heterogeneously labeled population will result, but double-donor labeled proteins will not emit in the acceptor wavelength and double-acceptor labeled proteins will not be excited. Moreover, the distance between fluorophores should be the same, regardless of which cysteine site a given fluorophore attaches to, especially when using the isotropic lanthanides as a donor, so the need to specify a given site to receive either the donor or acceptor is unnecessary. Intensity may be affected with a heterogeneous population, but should still be more than sufficient to be detected.
When planning experiments, the choice of fluorophores should be dictated by the R0 value of the pair as well as the expected distance range being measured. The R0 value is defined by the following equation:
Eq. 3
where, R0 is the Förster radius in Angstroms, κ2 is the orientation factor between the two dyes (usually assumed to be 2/3), ϕD is the quantum yield of the donor, J is the spectral overlap integral between the donor's emission spectrum and the acceptor's absorbance spectrum in M-1cm-1nm4, and n is the refractive index of the medium1.
Our laboratory has added a modification to the conventional LRET technique by introducing a protease recognition site between the donor and acceptor label sites on the protein being probed. This modification allows for investigation in non-purified systems such as whole mammalian cells7. This technique is particularly useful when using cysteines as sites for labeling, since in the process of labeling with maleimide-conjugated dyes that bind to cysteine sulfhydryl groups, other proteins on the cells that have cysteines are also labeled. However, by including protease cleavage sites on the protein of interest and measuring lifetimes before and after cleavage, the experimenter can quantitatively subtract the background signal after protease cleavage from the raw signal. This subtraction isolates the specific signal arising from the protein of interest (Figure 2). Using the modification described above, LRET can be used to measure distance changes between the terbium chelate donor and the acceptor probe on a protein, and thus monitor conformational changes in the protein’s near physiological state without the requirement for purification.

Figure 1.The absorption and emission spectra of chelated terbium in black, as well as a representative acceptor, Alexa 488, in red. Notice the multiple emission peaks and the sharp, narrow emission range for each peak of terbium chelate. This pattern allows for terbium to be used with a variety of acceptor fluorophores and facilitates the measurement of sensitized emission within those ranges where terbium shows no emission. Terbium’s emission peak at 486 nm overlaps quite well with the absorption peak of Alexa 488, allowing for resonance energy transfer to occur between the two fluorophores. A wavelength of 515 nm is an excellent choice to detect sensitized emission for this pair as it is in the valley between the terbium emission peaks, and quite near Alexa 488’s emission peak of 520 nm. Note that being near the acceptor peak, though desirable, is not required—565 nm is still able to detect Alexa 488 emission without also detecting terbium emission.
| Acceptor Fluorophore | R0 (Å) | Emission wavelength (nm) |
| Atto 465 | 36 | 508 |
| Fluorescein | 45 | 515 |
| Alexa 488 | 46 | 515 |
| Alexa 680 | 52 | 700 |
| Alexa 594 | 53 | 630 |
| Alexa 555 | 65 | 565 |
| Cy3 | 65 | 575 |
Table 1. A list of commonly used acceptor fluorophores for LRET using terbium chelate as the donor11. The R0 values were measured when the donor and acceptor were attached to the soluble agonist binding domain of AMPA receptors. It is ideal to measure the R0 value again for each new system being studied.

Figure 2. An overview of the LRET method presented. (A) The AMPA receptor is a membrane protein which undergoes conformational changes upon ligand-binding. The clamshell-shaped ligand-binding domain is circled here in red. (B) The ligand-binding domain of AMPA when not bound to protein exists in an open conformation (left). When bound to ligand glutamate, the protein closes around its ligand (right). By placing fluorophores at probative sites on the LBD, the nature of this conformational change can be seen as the distance between the fluorophores changes, which will then affect fluorescence lifetime. (C) When labeling whole cells, labeling of both the protein of interest as well as background membrane proteins may occur (left). After protease cleavage, LRET signal from the protein of interest will disappear due to the release of a soluble fragment, leaving background signal intact (right). This background signal can then be subtracted from the raw signal.