Difference between revisions of "Team:Uppsala/Phage Display"

Line 521: Line 521:
  
 
<p>
 
<p>
So how do we prove that the selected phages clones really bind to our target? With the help of ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) single phage clones affinity to the target could be tested by screening against plastic binders. This allowed us to determine which samples are viable. The ELISA was performed in the centrifugal filter-tubes as to expose the phages to the same environment as the panning stage of the process.  
+
So how do we prove that the selected phages clones really bind to our target? With the help of ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) single phage clones affinity to the target could be tested by screening against plastic binders. This allowed us to determine which samples are viable. The ELISA was performed in the centrifugal filter-tubes to expose the phages to the same environment as the panning stage of the process.  
 
</p>
 
</p>
  
Line 587: Line 587:
 
  <!--Start of template with side picutre -->
 
  <!--Start of template with side picutre -->
 
     <br>
 
     <br>
<h2>Phage Elisa</h2>
+
<h2>Phage ELISA</h2>
 
     </div>
 
     </div>
 
                 <div class="card-holder">  
 
                 <div class="card-holder">  
Line 709: Line 709:
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<p>
 
<p>
Five samples contain pure enough samples of sufficient concentration to satisfy the standard for third party sequencing. Series 1 produced a single samples of high enough quality, Series 2 were all deemed too low for accurate sequencing and Series 3 yieded four samples. The aligment used ClustalW with penalties 25 for gap-creation and 25 for gap-elongation to ensure strict alignments. No clear consensus motifs are distinguishable except slighty hydrophobic residues towards the end of the sequence.
+
Five samples contain pure enough samples of sufficient concentration to satisfy the standard for third party sequencing. Series 1 produced a single sample of high enough quality, Series 2 were all deemed too low for accurate sequencing and Series 3 yieded four samples. The aligment used ClustalW with penalties 25 for gap-creation and 25 for gap-elongation to ensure strict alignments. No clear consensus motifs are distinguishable except slighty hydrophobic residues towards the end of the sequence.
  
 
Predictive analysis was performed with <a href="http://immunet.cn/sarotup/cgi-bin/TUPScan.pl">SAROTUP: Target-Unrelated Peptides Scanners</a>[3, 4, 5].
 
Predictive analysis was performed with <a href="http://immunet.cn/sarotup/cgi-bin/TUPScan.pl">SAROTUP: Target-Unrelated Peptides Scanners</a>[3, 4, 5].
Line 756: Line 756:
 
<h1 id="ConcPhage">Conclusion</h1>
 
<h1 id="ConcPhage">Conclusion</h1>
 
<p>
 
<p>
Due to the fact that our ELISA-test was inconclusive we can not be sure that our peptides are specific binders. However, only one was predicted as a Polysterene binder and none contain any known TUP-sequences. A blastp on Biopanning Databank showed that EF01122224 showed some similarities with an antibody for a pork tapeworm epithelial proteins and EF01122218 for an antibody for rabbit epithelia. The E-values were high, 185  and 10 respectively, but those two would be promising candidates for future studies.  
+
Due to the fact that our ELISA-test was inconclusive we can not be sure that our peptides are specific binders. However, only one was predicted as a Polysterene binder and none contain any known TUP-sequences. A blastp on Biopanning Databank showed that EF01122224 showed some similarities with an antibody for a pork tapeworm epithelial protein and EF01122218 for an antibody for rabbit epithelia. The E-values were high, 185  and 10 respectively, but those two would be promising candidates for future studies.  
 
</p>
 
</p>
 
</div>
 
</div>

Revision as of 17:35, 17 October 2018