4.5 Article

Screening one bead one compound libraries against serum using a flow cytometer: Determination of the minimum antibody concentration required for ligand discovery

Journal

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
Volume 28, Issue 16, Pages 2773-2778

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2018.01.033

Keywords

Combinatorial libraries; Peptidomimetic ligand; Antibodies; Biomarkers; Flow cytometry

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [AG0528113]
  2. Fulbright Foreign Student Program - Institute of International Education [PS00217127]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

One bead one compound (OBOC) libraries can be screened against serum samples to identify ligands to antibodies in this mixture. In this protocol, hit beads are identified by staining with a fluorescent labeled secondary antibody. When screens are conducted against two different sets of serum, antibodies, and ligands to them, can be discovered that distinguish the two populations. The application of DNA-encoding technology to OBOC libraries has allowed the use of 10 mu m beads for library preparation and screening, which pass through a standard flow cytometer, allowing the fluorescent hit beads to be separated from beads displaying non-ligands easily. An important issue in using this approach for the discovery of antibody biomarkers is its analytical sensitivity. In other words, how abundant must an IgG be to allow it to be pulled out of serum in an unbiased screen using a flow cytometer? We report here a model study in which monoclonal antibodies with known ligands of varying affinities are doped into serum. We find that for antibody ligands typical of what one isolates from an unbiased combinatorial library, the target antibody must be present at 10-50 nM. True antigens, which bind with significantly higher affinity, can detect much less abundant serum antibodies. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available