2015
DOI: 10.1016/bs.mie.2014.12.032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phage Display Selections for Affinity Reagents to Membrane Proteins in Nanodiscs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
64
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(26 reference statements)
0
64
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The phage display sorting procedure performed to generate the sABs (Figure 1A) is based on a previously described solution capture scheme utilizing a Kingfisher magnetic beads handler (Fellouse et al, 2007; Paduch et al, 2013; Dominik and Kossiakoff, 2015). Membrane proteins were reconstituted into nanodiscs (Figures 1B and 1C) after optimization following established protocols (Ritchie et al, 2009; Bayburt and Sligar, 2010).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The phage display sorting procedure performed to generate the sABs (Figure 1A) is based on a previously described solution capture scheme utilizing a Kingfisher magnetic beads handler (Fellouse et al, 2007; Paduch et al, 2013; Dominik and Kossiakoff, 2015). Membrane proteins were reconstituted into nanodiscs (Figures 1B and 1C) after optimization following established protocols (Ritchie et al, 2009; Bayburt and Sligar, 2010).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior to library sorting, the efficiency of biotinylation of antigens was evaluated by pull-down on streptavidin-coated magnetic beads (Streptavidin MagneSpehere Paramagnetic particles, Promega). Library sorting steps were performed using sAB Library E (kindly provided by S. Koide (Miller et al, 2012)) based on described protocols (Fellouse et al, 2007; Koide et al, 2009; Paduch et al, 2013; Dominik and Kossiakoff, 2015) with following modifications: 1) five, instead of four, rounds of library sorting were performed, 2) experiments with nanodiscs were performed in either buffer B (1% BSA in buffer A) or buffer C (1 mM EDTA in buffer B for CorA wild-type), while experiments with Mj 0480 in detergent – in buffer D (buffer B with 0.05% DDM), 3) for experiments with nanodiscs, starting from 2 nd sorting round, non-biotinylated empty nanodiscs (and, where indicated, CorA D253K nanodiscs) were used as soluble competitors, 4) elution of phage particles in experiments with nanodiscs and detergent were achieved by incubation in buffer B supplemented with 1% FC-12 and 100 mM DDT, respectively. The details of the strategy along with concentrations of membrane protein antigens throughout the library sorting experiments are further described in the Supplemental Information.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The optimal molar ratio of the components used in the reconstitution of the protein in nanodiscs is a 1:5:250 ratio of MalFGK2:MSP:lipids. The empty nanodiscs were separated from the loaded ones by IMAC following published protocols 32,33 . The transporter was further purified by SEC on a 10/300 S200 column to obtain monodispersed sample for activity assay.…”
Section: Purification Of E Coli Transporter Malfgk 2 and Reconstitutmentioning
confidence: 99%