4.5 Article

Comparison of techniques to screen and characterize bacteria-specific hybridomas for high-quality monoclonal antibodies selection

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 421, 期 1, 页码 26-36

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2011.10.005

关键词

Hybridoma screening; Microarrays; ELISA; Surface plasmon resonance; Fluorescence; Listeria monocytogenes

资金

  1. National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC, Thailand)
  2. Marie Curie Fellowship [910608]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antibodies are are very important materials for diagnostics. A rapid and simple hybridoma screening method will help in delivering specific monoclonal antibodies. In this study, we systematically developed the first antibody array to screen for bacteria-specific monoclonal antibodies using Listeria monocytogenes as a bacteria model. The antibody array was developed to expedite the hybridoma screening process by printing hybridoma supernatants on a glass slide coated with an antigen of interest. This screening method is based on the binding ability of supernatants to the coated antigen. The bound supernatants were detected by a fluorescently labeled anti-mouse immunoglobulin. Conditions (slide types, coating, spotting, and blocking buffers) for antibody array construction were optimized. To demonstrate its usefulness, antibody array was used to screen a sample set of 96 hybridoma supernatants in comparison to ELISA. Most of the positive results identified by ELISA and antibody array methods were in agreement except for those with low signals that were undetectable by antibody array. Hybridoma supernatants were further characterized with surface plasmon resonance to obtain additional data on the characteristics of each selected clone. While the antibody array was slightly less sensitive than ELISA, a much faster and lower cost procedure to screen clones against multiple antigens has been demonstrated. (C) 2011 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