2011
DOI: 10.1007/s00249-011-0699-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Size and conformational features of ErbB2 and ErbB3 receptors: a TEM and DLS comparative study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
6
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
2
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…By fitting the data obtained for bare nanoprobes (red markers) and for nanoprobes with a fully assembled analyte shell (blue markers), we deduced average shell thicknesses of 15 ± 9.5 nm for the antibody functionalization and 25 ± 13 nm for the antibody layer with bound target proteins. These values correlate well with reported IgG antibody and sHER2 protein sizes. For target protein analysis, the actual measurement signal is defined by the difference in phase lag angles between bare nanoprobes and nanoprobes with bound analyte.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…By fitting the data obtained for bare nanoprobes (red markers) and for nanoprobes with a fully assembled analyte shell (blue markers), we deduced average shell thicknesses of 15 ± 9.5 nm for the antibody functionalization and 25 ± 13 nm for the antibody layer with bound target proteins. These values correlate well with reported IgG antibody and sHER2 protein sizes. For target protein analysis, the actual measurement signal is defined by the difference in phase lag angles between bare nanoprobes and nanoprobes with bound analyte.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The analyte was added together with a 75-fold higher concentration of bovine serum albumin (BSA) protein, which when added alone did not alter the nanoprobe signal (green markers), thus confirming specific sHER2 binding. By fitting the data obtained for bare nanoprobes (red markers) and for nanoprobes with a fully assembled analyte shell (blue markers), we deduced average shell thicknesses of 15 ± 9.5 nm for the antibody functionalization and 25 ± 19 and sHER2 protein 20 sizes. For target protein analysis, the actual measurement signal is defined by the difference in phase lag angles between bare nanoprobes and nanoprobes with bound analyte.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fitting of the experimental data (solid lines in the figure) by the respective theoretical model [ 299 ] resulted in hydrodynamic shell thicknesses of 15 ± 9.5 nm for the antibody shell and of 25 ± 13 nm for the antibody shell including bound target protein (both measured on top of the nanoreagents). These values are in good agreement with respective protein sizes reported in the literature [ 291 , 304 , 305 ]. Here, the target protein sHER2 was added in saturation (200 nM) to ensure full nanoprobe coverage [ 291 ].…”
Section: Optical Detection Methodssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…30 Thus, after image processing, it is currently possible to give accurate results about the shape and size of biological complexes, in close agreement with other biophysical methodologies as dynamic light scattering. 31 Purified SOS1 was analyzed with a transmission electron microscope after being adsorbed to glow-discharged carbon coated grids and stained with 2% uranyl formate. Grids were observed using a JEOL JEM-2100 transmission electron microscope operated at 200 kV and a nominal magnification of 20,000.…”
Section: Electron Microscopy and 3d Reconstructionsmentioning
confidence: 99%