4.6 Article

Issues associated with assessing nuclear localization of N-terminally unphosphorylated β-catenin with monoclonal antibody 8E7

期刊

BIOLOGY DIRECT
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1745-6150-4-5

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH [T32 GM08061, T32 HL076139-05, GM076561]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: beta-catenin is a dual function adhesion/transcriptional co-activator protein, and both functions are critical for normal tissue homeostasis. Since the transcriptional functions of beta-catenin are more often implicated in various disease processes, there is much interest in the development and use of reagents to interrogate spatial and temporal evidence of beta-catenin nuclear signaling in cells and tissues. An important study demonstrated that the signaling form of beta-catenin is specifically unphosphorylated at residues S37 and T41, and suggested that this form exhibits a propensity for cytosolic/nuclear accumulation relative to the total pool of beta-catenin. Results: We show that monoclonal antibody, 8E7, which recognizes the signaling form of beta-catenin specifically unphosphorylated at S37 and T41 (Active B-Catenin, ABC), also cross-reacts with a widely expressed, variably accessible nuclear antigen that is not beta-catenin. In cell types commonly used to study Wnt activation, this non-specific nuclear staining can be robust, obscuring the ABC signal. Definitive detection of nuclear localized ABC can be confirmed through an ability of classical cadherins to sequester ABC to cell junctions. In tissues, milder antigen retrieval methods can reduce the accessibility of mAb 8E7 to this cross-reacting nuclear antigen. Conclusion: These findings reveal that interpretation of nuclear, signaling active beta-catenin using monoclonal antibody 8E7 should be considered judiciously, and in conjunction with independent methods. Reviewers: This article was reviewed by Frank J. T. Staal (nominated by Rachel Gerstein), Jyoti M. Sen (nominated by Avinash Bhandoola) and Manabu Sugai.

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

4.6
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