4.7 Article

Broadly reactive aptamers targeting bacteria belonging to different genera using a sequential toggle cell-SELEX

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep43641

关键词

-

资金

  1. Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) Institutional Research Program [2E26260, 2E26631]
  2. Korean Ministry of Environment as part of The Eco-Innovation Program [2016000140006]
  3. Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning, Republic of Korea [2E26260] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conventional cell-SELEX aims to isolate aptamers to a single unique target bacteria species. We propose a method to isolate single-stranded DNA aptamers that have broad reactivity to multiple bacterial targets belonging to different genera. The key of the proposed method is that targets of interest are changed sequentially at each SELEX round. The general scheme was examined using six bacteria from different genera, Escherichia coli, Enterobacter aerogenes, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Citrobacter freundii, Bacillus subtilis, and Staphylococcus epidermidis (four gram-negative and two gram-positive bacteria). In the first round of SELEX, the DNA library was incubated with E. coli and amplicons bound to E. coli were separated. The amplicons were sequentially separated by incubation with E. aerogenes, K. pneumoniae, C. freundii, B. subtilis, and S. epidermidis at each SELEX. The amplicons obtained using the last bacterial species were incubated again with the first bacterial species and this loop was repeated two more times. We refer to this method as sequential toggle cell-SELEX (STC-SELEX). The isolated aptamers had dissociation constants of 9.22-38.5 nM and had no affinity to other bacteria that were not included in STC-SELEX. These results demonstrate the potential to isolate aptamers with broad affinity to bacterial taxa in different genera.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据