3.9 Article

Assessing the Stability of Membrane Proteins to Detect Ligand Binding Using Differential Static Light Scattering

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMOLECULAR SCREENING
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 314-320

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1087057109357117

Keywords

membrane proteins; stability; ligand; DSLS; thermodenaturation

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research [1097737]
  2. Canadian Foundation for Innovation
  3. Genome Canada through the Ontario Genomics Institute
  4. GlaxosmithKline
  5. Karolinska Institutet
  6. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  7. Ontario Innovation Trust
  8. Ontario Ministry for Research and Innovation
  9. Merck Co.
  10. Novartis Research Foundation
  11. Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems
  12. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  13. Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Protein stabilization upon ligand binding has frequently been used to identify ligands for soluble proteins. methods such as differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) and differential static light scattering (DSLS) have been employed in the 384-well format and have been useful in identifying ligands that promote crystallization and 3D structure determination of proteins. However, finding a generic method that is applicable to membrane proteins has been a challenge as the high hydrophobicity of membrane proteins and the presence of detergents essential for their solubilization interfere with fluorescence-based detections. Here the authors used MsbA (an adenosine triphosphate binding cassette transporter), CorA (a Mg++ channel), and CpxA (a histidine kinase) as model proteins and show that DSLS is not sensitive to the presence of detergents or protein hydrophobicity and can be used to monitor thermodenaturation of membrane proteins, assess their stability, and detect ligand binding in a 384-well format. (Journal of Biomolecular Screening 2010: 314-320)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available