4.2 Article

In situ stimulation of a T helper cell hybridoma with a cellulose-bound peptide antigen

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
Volume 233, Issue 1-2, Pages 95-105

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1759(99)00194-5

Keywords

antigen processing; membrane; mass spectrometry; multiple synthesis; solid phase; stimulation

Funding

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM45011] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays take advantage of immobilized antigens for the identification of antibody binding sites. Generally, the analysis of cellulose membrane-bound B-cell epitopes is currently considered of high utility. We adapted this methodology for the stimulation of a T helper cell hybridoma with known specificity. Forty overlapping peptides corresponding to the entire rabies virus nucleoprotein were synthesized in duplicates on a single sheet of 90 x 130 mm size amino-modified paper. The efficacy of the peptide assembly was monitored by color staining of the unreacted amino groups. After completion of the synthesis, the side-chain protecting groups were removed, and the membrane was thoroughly cleaned of all organic and inorganic contaminants. The membrane was cut into pieces, and a standard lymphokine release assay was performed directly from the paper-bound antigens. From all the 40 peptide spots only peptide 31D stimulated the proliferation of the 9C5.D8-H T-cell hybridoma, known to react to this peptide. By using this protocol, as little as 0.4 mu g (approximately 200 pmole) of peptide could be detected. According to mass spectrometry the T-cell stimulation proceeded as a true solid-phase assay. The peptide neither leached from the membrane nor was cleaved by the medium-splenocyte mixture. Additionally, tryptic digestion of the cellulose membrane released the expected peptide fragments. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available