 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I can't help you to understand, but finding the answers to some of these
questions might:
Did the confocal allow you to discern the localisation of the staining? If
it was on the surface it could be that you've opened up a "hidden epitope"
by fixing. Otherwise it could be that you are seeing an internal store or
nascent ligand - was it localised to ER or golgi etc? Is it posible to
blot a gel of cellular protein with your probe to see how many protein
species are involved?
Formaldehyde isn't great for permeablising cells, what happens if you add a
detergent to ensure that all of your cells are permeablised; do you still
get only 50-60%? What happens if you don't fix them, eg if you cytospin
them for microscopy, does the binding still occur? Have you included
avidin controls; there are reports that streptavidin may specifically bind
certain amino acid sequences, could this be why you only get partial
blocking with cold ligand?
good luck
Ray
At 10:25 am -0500 7/7/97, Kevin G Waddick wrote:
>Hi everybody,
> I am puzzled by a question that I hope someone can help me understand.
>We are using a human lymphocyte cell-surface protein extracellular domain
>that, through stable transfection, is being produced in insect cells.
>Although this antigen itself is well-characterized, and it seems to be a
>receptor protein, no counter-ligand has been definitely found yet.
> Here is the problem. We have biotinylated the protein and are testing
>a wide range of different cell types for the ability to specifically bind
>it. When we test unfixed cells by flow cytometry, we either get no
>staining (using either avidin-FITC or -PE) or when there seems to be some
>staining, it is merely 1-10% of the primary or cell line cells with a
>large range of intensities (starting at barely above the
>control-determined +/- level). So far so good, however, when a guy here
>did side-by-side fluorescence confocal microscopy, he used cells that
>either were or were not formaldehye-fixed prior to treatment with protein
>followed by the avidin-fluorochrome; the fixed cells of a particular type
>showed a definitely positive fraction of ~50%, while the unfixed cells had
>a positive percentage similar to the unfixed cells examined by FCM. When
>previously fixed cells were tested using FCM, a tightly-focussed,
>reasonably intense positive population of ~60% appeared, whereas in the
>unfixed sample the positivity was only 5% with the usual scattered
>intensity. The staining can be partially blocked using unbiotinylated
>ligand.
> I don't think the staining of the fixed cells is nonspecific because
>cell types that were totally negative when unfixed remain negative when
>fixed. It seems contrary to sense that if a cell has a specific receptor
>for a ligand, it only becomes highly evident using fixed cells and is
>questionable when using healthy, unfixed cells. Does anyone have
>experience with this phenomenon? What does it mean?
>
>Kevin G. Waddick, Ph.D.
>Staff Scientist
>Hughes Institute
>2685 Patton Road
>Roseville, Minnesota 55113
>(612) 628-0598
>(612) 628-9891 Fax
Ray Hicks
________________________________________________________________________
|University of Cambridge |Tel 01223 330149 |
|Department of Medicine |Fax 01223 336846 |
|Level 5, Addenbrookes Hospital |e-mail <rh208@cus.cam.ac.uk> |
|Hills Road Cambridge |Web http://facsmac.med.cam.ac.uk |
|CB2 |ftp server ftp://131.111.80.78 |
|UK | |
|_________________________________|_____________________________________|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CD-ROM Vol 3 was produced by Monica M. Shively and other staff at the
Purdue University Cytometry Laboratories and distributed free of charge
as an educational service to the cytometry community.
If you have any comments please direct them to
Dr. J. Paul Robinson, Professor & Director,
PUCL, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
Phone: (765)-494-0757;
FAX(765) 494-0517;
Web