“…A narrow dynamic range would be expected for both indicators from their large Hill coefficient of n ϭ 3.3 [GCaMP1.3 (Nakai et al, 2001)] and n ϭ 3.8 [GCaMP1.6 (Nakai, personal communication)]. Moreover, we expected saturation of the GCaMPs in the experiments in Figure 3 because calcium changes of many hundred nanomoles up to the micromolar range can be expected in the Drosophila boutons under these conditions (Macleod at al., 2004), and K d values of 235 and 146 nM have been reported for GCaMP1.3 (Nakai et al, 2001) and GCaMP1.6, respectively, when measured in vitro (Nakai, personal communication). This discrepancy cannot be explained by the interplay of several compensating factors (such as cooperative calcium binding, saturation of the probe, missing background subtraction, and bleaching) because a linear relationship of the GCaMP1.3 fluorescence to neural activity was observed (Fig.…”