4.5 Article

Corruption of phage display libraries by target-unrelated clones: Diagnosis and countermeasures

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 407, 期 2, 页码 237-240

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2010.07.037

关键词

Phage display; Target-unrelated peptides; Phage propagation; Filamentous phage libraries; Affinity selection; Recombination

资金

  1. U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Center [P50-CA-10313]
  2. University of Missouri
  3. NCI [R21CA127339]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phage display is used to discover peptides or proteins with a desired target property most often, affinity for a target selector molecule. Libraries of phage clones displaying diverse surface peptides are subject to a selection process designed to enrich for the target behavior and subsequently propagated to restore phage numbers. A recurrent problem is enrichment of clones, called target-unrelated phages or peptides (TUPs), that lack the target behavior. Many TUPs are propagation related; they have mutations conferring a growth advantage and are enriched during the propagations accompanying selection. Unlike other filamentous phage libraries, fd-tet-based libraries are relatively resistant to propagation-related TUP corruption. Their minus-strand origin is disrupted by a large cassette that simultaneously confers resistance to tetracycline and imposes a rate-limiting growth defect that cannot be bypassed with simple mutations. Nonetheless, a new type of propagation-related TUP emerged in the output of in vivo selections from an fd-tet library. The founding clone had a complex rearrangement that restored the minus-strand origin while retaining tetracycline resistance. The rearrangement involved two recombination events, one with a contaminant having a wild-type minus-strand origin. The founder's infectivity advantage spread by simple recombination to clones displaying different peptides. We propose measures for minimizing TUP corruption. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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