4.8 Article

Affimers proteins are versatile and renewable affinity reagents

Journal

ELIFE
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.24903

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council
  2. Wellcome
  3. British Heart Foundation [NH/12/1/29832]
  4. Yorkshire Cancer Research [L362]
  5. BBSRC [BB/J020370/1, BB/L018047/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. MRC [MC_EX_MR/K015591/1, MR/K018779/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L018047/1, BB/J020370/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. British Heart Foundation [FS/12/20/29462, FS/17/30/32832, FS/16/24/32133] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Medical Research Council [MC_EX_MR/K015591/1, MR/K018779/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Molecular recognition reagents are key tools for understanding biological processes and are used universally by scientists to study protein expression, localisation and interactions. Antibodies remain the most widely used of such reagents and many show excellent performance, although some are poorly characterised or have stability or batch variability issues, supporting the use of alternative binding proteins as complementary reagents for many applications. Here we report on the use of Affimer proteins as research reagents. We selected 12 diverse molecular targets for Affimer selection to exemplify their use in common molecular and cellular applications including the (a) selection against various target molecules; (b) modulation of protein function in vitro and in vivo; (c) labelling of tumour antigens in mouse models; and (d) use in affinity fluorescence and super-resolution microscopy. This work shows that Affimer proteins, as is the case for other alternative binding scaffolds, represent complementary affinity reagents to antibodies for various molecular and cell biology applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available