Looks like positive cooperativity to me. If binding at one site increases 
affinity at the second site, then intermediate concentrations of your 
unlabelled ligand can (seemingly paradoxically) *increase* binding of your 
tracer. At higher levels still, the unlabelled ligand outcompetes the tracer as 
expected. See figure 1 in http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/5/1783.

Hope this helps,

Tristan

 
 
Tristan Croll
Research Fellow
Cambridge Institute for Medical Research
University of Cambridge CB2 0XY
 

 

> On 21 Jun 2017, at 20:20, megha abbey <abbey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> This is an off-topic question. I have some issues regarding Fluorescence 
> Polarization competitive displacement assay and would need some advice. 
> 
> I have developed an in vitro fluorescence polarization based assay using a 
> N-terminus labelled FITC peptide. The peptide is 21 amino acids long and the 
> binding protein is 50 Kda in size. The Kd for interaction is 1 uM. I am 
> further running a competitive displacement assay using the exactly same 
> unlabelled peptide. Here, with increasing concentration of the unlabeled 
> peptide, the polarization signal first increases and then shows a sharp 
> decline. Attached is the raw data file for the above. 
> 
> I believe that if the unlabelled peptide had been aggregating, the 
> polarization signal would increase but not drop. If the binding would have 
> been non-specific, then the unlabelled peptide should not displace at all, 
> but here I see an increase followed by a decrease in the signal. What does 
> this increase and sharp drop in polarization signify and how do I fix this? 
> Please help.
> 
> I have checked the polarization for titration of the unlabelled peptide mixed 
> with fixed conc. of FITC-peptide (no protein added). Here, the polarization 
> signals are the same for the entire range of unlabeled peptide. I have also 
> tried incubating the unlabelled peptide with the protein (for ~15min) first 
> followed by addition of FITC-peptide, but the results are the same.  
> 
> Thank you,
> Megha
> <unlabelled displ..xlsx>

Reply via email to