2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.05.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determining selectivity of phosphoinositide-binding domains

Abstract: The burgeoning of phosphoinositide-binding domains and proteins in cellular signaling and trafficking has drawn laboratories from a wide variety of fields into the study of lipid interactions with peripheral membrane proteins. Many different approaches have been developed to assess phosphoinositide binding, some of which are more problematic than others, and some of which can be quantitated more readily than others. With a focus on the methods used in our laboratory, we describe here the considerations that ne… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
121
2
3

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 119 publications
(131 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
(114 reference statements)
5
121
2
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The latter can be explained by the fact that the RFLR motif is present and may contribute to PtdIns ( for PtdIns(3)P to be 2.3 µM. This value is within the range of other PtdIns(3)P-binding protein domains such as the EEA1 FYVE and the Vam7p PX domains (131,132), but is 3-10-fold higher to that estimated for Avr1b and AvrL567 using effector binding to cells and liposome binding assays (11); this higher affinity value may be explained by the presence of additional tags in the proteins tested in these assays that may contribute to the binding (134). Nonetheless, a modest affinity of a protein to phosphoinositides, such as Avh5, may be required for its further release from intracellular membranes to target other subcellular compartments (135).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…The latter can be explained by the fact that the RFLR motif is present and may contribute to PtdIns ( for PtdIns(3)P to be 2.3 µM. This value is within the range of other PtdIns(3)P-binding protein domains such as the EEA1 FYVE and the Vam7p PX domains (131,132), but is 3-10-fold higher to that estimated for Avr1b and AvrL567 using effector binding to cells and liposome binding assays (11); this higher affinity value may be explained by the presence of additional tags in the proteins tested in these assays that may contribute to the binding (134). Nonetheless, a modest affinity of a protein to phosphoinositides, such as Avh5, may be required for its further release from intracellular membranes to target other subcellular compartments (135).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…We used surface plasmon resonance (SPR) to measure the interaction of F2F3 with phospholipid bilayers immobilized on a hydrophobically modified Biacore L1 SPR chip (30). All measurements were made relative to a surface containing 100% phosphatidylcholine (PC).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proteins were then tested for their ability to bind to lipids using the well-established lipid vesicle sedimentation (LVS) assay (Narayan and Lemmon 2006). This method involves the quantitative pelleting of liposomal vesicles from a lipid/ protein mixture.…”
Section: Lipid Binding Assaysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The assay requires that the protein does not precipitate, and its precipitation is not promoted by the presence of the lipid due to nonspecific binding. Therefore, we used proteins that do not precipitate and several control-lipids (Narayan and Lemmon 2006). Control lipids are lipids that have similar or identical hydrophobic tails to lipids that Hsp70s bind but have different head groups and do not bind or show minimal binding to HspA1A (for example PC or PE are control lipids for PS).…”
Section: Lipid Binding Assaysmentioning
confidence: 99%