AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Biosensor Technologies, Tulln, Austria.
AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Biosensor Technologies, Tulln, Austria; Faculty of Biology, Institute of Molecular Physiology, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz, Germany.
Methods Enzymol. 2020;642:229-258. doi: 10.1016/bs.mie.2020.05.006. Epub 2020 Jun 6.
Assessing the ligand-binding properties of OBPs and CSPs is essential for understanding their physiological function. It also provides basic information when these proteins are used as biosensing elements for instrumental measurement of odors. Although different approaches have been applied in the past to evaluate the affinity of receptors and soluble binding proteins to their ligands, using a fluorescent reporter represents the method of choice for OBPs and CSPs. It offers the advantages of working at the equilibrium, being simple, fast and inexpensive, without requiring the use of radioactive tracers. However, as an indirect method, the fluorescence competitive binding approach presents drawbacks and sometimes requires an elaborate analysis to explain unexpected results. Here, after a brief survey of the different approaches to evaluate affinity constants, we focus on the fluorescence binding assay as applied to OBPs and CSPs, discussing situations that may require closer inspection of the results.
评估 OBPs 和 CSPs 的配体结合特性对于理解它们的生理功能至关重要。当这些蛋白质被用作仪器测量气味的生物传感元件时,它也提供了基本信息。尽管过去已经应用了不同的方法来评估受体和可溶性结合蛋白与其配体的亲和力,但使用荧光报告物是 OBPs 和 CSPs 的首选方法。它具有在平衡状态下工作的优点,简单、快速且廉价,而不需要使用放射性示踪剂。然而,作为一种间接方法,荧光竞争结合法存在一些缺点,有时需要进行详细分析才能解释意外结果。在这里,在简要调查了评估亲和力常数的不同方法之后,我们专注于应用于 OBPs 和 CSPs 的荧光结合测定法,讨论可能需要更仔细检查结果的情况。