4.4 Article

Microarray-formatted clinical biomarker assay development using peptide aptamers to anterior gradient-2

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 46, 期 48, 页码 13742-13751

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi7008739

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C511572/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C511572/1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anterior gradient-2 protein was identified using proteomic technologies as a p53 inhibitor which is overexpressed in human cancers, and this protein presents a novel pro-oncogenic target with which to develop diagnostic assays for biomarker detection in clinical tissue. Combinatorial phage-peptide libraries were used to select 12 amino acid polypeptide aptamers toward anterior gradient-2 to determine whether methods can be developed to affinity purify the protein from clinical biopsies. Selecting phage aptamers through four rounds of screening on recombinant human anterior gradient-2 protein identified two classes of peptide ligand that bind to distinct epitopes on anterior gradient-2 protein in an immunoblot. Synthetic biotinylated peptide aptamers bound in an ELISA format to anterior gradient-2, and substitution mutagenesis further minimized one polypeptide aptamer to a hexapeptide core. Aptamers containing this latter consensus sequence could be used to affinity purify to homogeneity human anterior,gradient-2 protein from a single clinical biopsy. The spotting of a panel of peptide aptamers onto a protein microarray matrix could be used to quantify anterior gradient-2 protein from crude clinical biopsy lysates providing a format for quantitative screening. These data highlight the utility of peptide combinatorial libraries to acquire rapidly a high-affinity ligand that can selectively bind a target protein from a clinical biopsy and provide technological approach for clinical biomarker assay development in an aptamer microarray format.

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

4.4
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