4.5 Article

Electrophoresis of DNA in agarose gels, polyacrylamide gels and in free solution

期刊

ELECTROPHORESIS
卷 30, 期 -, 页码 S188-S195

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/elps.200900052

关键词

Agarose gels; Capillary electrophoresis; DNA; Free solution mobility; Polyacrylamide gels

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM29690, EB002808, GM61009]
  2. National Science Foundation [CHE-0748271]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING [R01EB002808] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM029690, R01GM061009] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review describes the electrophoresis of curved and normal DNA molecules in agarose gels, polyacrylamide gels and in free solution. These studies were undertaken to clarify why curved DNA molecules migrate anomalously slowly in polyacrylamide gels but not in agarose gels. Two milestone papers are cited, in which Ferguson plots were used to estimate the effective pore size of agarose and polyacrylamide gels. Subsequent studies on the effect of the electric field on agarose and polyacrylamide gel matrices, DNA interactions with the two gel matrices, and the effect of curvature on the free solution mobility of DNA are also described. The combined results suggest that the anomalously slow mobilities observed for curved DNA molecules in polyacrylamide gels are primarily due to preferential interactions of curved DNAs with the polyacrylamide gel matrix; the restrictive pore size of the matrix is of lesser importance. In free solution, DNA mobilities increase with increasing molecular mass until leveling off at a plateau value of (3.17 +/- 0.01) x 10(-4) cm(2)/V s in 40 mM Tris-acetate-EDTA buffer at 20 degrees C. Curved DNA molecules migrate anomalously slowly in free solution as well as in polyacrylamide gels, explaining why the Ferguson plots of curved and normal DNAs containing the same number of base pairs extrapolate to different mobilities at zero gel concentration.

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