Figure 1 Binding Assay Layout: Triplicate reactions were filtered using a nitrocellulose filter. To test for positive binding, R1, R3, and R5 protein and RNA was placed in three wells in the regions 1, 3, and 5 respectively. To determine how much of the binding was a result of RNA affinity for the nitrocellulose, R1, R3, and R5 RNA minus protein was placed in three wells in regions 2, 4, and 6 respectively.
Figure 2 Binding Assay: Nitrocellulose filter was used to separate the protein and bound RNA away from the unbound RNA which was collected on the nylon filter. The dots are a result from exposure of the 32P labeled RNA to phosphor plates.
Binding was minimal as shown by the faintness of the samples collected on the nitrocellulose filter in figure 2 and the comparison of the percent binding in figure 3. However, it must be noted that the results may be slightly skewed due to prolonged exposure between the 32P labeled RNA and phosphor plates which may account for the increased desensitization, and subsequently higher percent bound volumes, on the nitrocellulose filter. Nevertheless, the decreased average percentage of negatively binding RNA on the nitrocellulose filter (1.125% to 0.584%) does indicate the RNA with higher affinity for the protein, rather than the beads or filter, is gradually being selected. The average percent bound of high affinity RNA can be increased by progressively more stringent selection conditions to further reduce the amount of low affinity sequences and background binders.
Figure 3 Percent Binding: Percent binding is the amount of bound RNA and EphA2 on the nitrocellulose filter. It is calculated by dividing the total volume of protein and both bound and unbound RNA by the volume of bound RNA and EphA2.
Ansuini, H., et al (2009) “Anti-EphA2 Antibodies with Distinct In Vitro Properties Have Equal In Vivo Efficacy in Pancreatic Cancer.” Journal of Oncology 2009: 1-10.
Kinch, M. S. (2005). Targeted drug delivery using EphA2 or EphA4 binding moieties. Patent No. 20050153923. Laytonsville, MD, US.
Phillips, J. A., et al (2008) “Applications of aptamers in cancer cell biology.” Analytica Chimica Acta 621 Review: 101-108.
Walker-Daniels, J., et al (2003) “Differential Regulation of EphA2 in Normal and Malignant Cells.” American Journal of Pathology 162: 1037-1042.
4 comments:
It may be a good idea to write some information on your target. Even though this is an update of what you have been doing you must still make it interesting for the reader, this can be done by including the importance of the project.
How was the DNA labeled? (ie what part of transcription incorporated the radioactivity?)
It was great that you included possible sources of error!
Excellent post of binding assay data and information. A agree with Nia, but planned to post this for most of the targets in lab to get us caught up. Must. Find. Time.
I added an intro section about the significance of EphA2 as a target. Regarding how the DNA was labeled, I believe the 32P was on the beta position on the nucleotide? Correct me if I'm wrong. I also changed the tag of this to data. Thanks for the input guys!
Hey Jialing!
I am a little confused about your presentation of how EphA2 is overactive. Is it the
"lack of binding between the ephrin A1 ligand and the EphA2 receptor" that causes uncontrollable cell growth or is it the sheer volume of ephron A1 binding that causes it. From the way you talked about it in the rest of the paragraph, it seems like the whole point of binding an aptamer is to cause some sort of competitive inhibition. Is this correct? Please explain.:)
Also, as I have never done a binding assay before, I have very little knowledge about them. I believe you presented at least the basics very well. However, what is the tRNA for?
Thanks!
Post a Comment