t; Khan <mohdkhan0...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *Mohammad Khan <mohdkhan0...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 21 July 2017 at 14:32
> *To: *"CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK" <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> *Subject: *[ccp4bb] Off topic: Flourescence anisotropy measurement
>
Dear Didier and Opher,
The difference in polarities can reach upto 60 units. I have tried
concentrations between 1-5 nM DNA. Maybe I will give higher concentrations
a shot.
Thanks!
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Didier Spittler
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What is your
Dear Julius,
That is a good suggestion. I will definitely try this.
Thanks!
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Rabl, Julius wrote:
> Dear Mohammad,
> your buffer is key to success in biophysical measurements. While your
> protein may be totally fine in standard buffer, the
, 2017 9:44 AM
To:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Off topic: Flourescence anisotropy measurement
Completely agree, you need a higher DNA concentration. We have had luck with 10
nM DNA.
Also, bubbles have a HUGE impact on how the fluorescent signal is measured.
Make sure you spin yo
r...@uchicago.edu>
From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Morgan Milton
[eilise.mil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 9:44 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Off topic: Flourescence anisotropy measurement
Comple
if one has multiple species , e.g. bound and free, with each a
different relative brightness and anisotropy/polarisation, then the use
( and interpretation) of anisotropy is straight forward; just a sum
weighted by molecular fraction and the relative brightness.
For polarisation is far more
>Ideally you should convert polarization to anisotropy. Simple enough – but
>some referees can get picky…
What is the argument for anisotropy being better?
JPK
board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Mohammad
Khan
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 9:33 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Off topic: Flourescence anisotropy measurement
Dear all,
I am trying to measure the difference in polarization upon the binding of the
DNA to my protein
Completely agree, you need a higher DNA concentration. We have had luck
with 10 nM DNA.
Also, bubbles have a HUGE impact on how the fluorescent signal is measured.
Make sure you spin your plates down (assuming you are using them) to remove
any bubbles. We just had an undergrad read his anisotropy
<CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>>
Subject: [ccp4bb] Off topic: Flourescence anisotropy measurement
Dear all,
I am trying to measure the difference in polarization upon the binding of the
DNA to my protein. I take 1-5 nM of Cy3-labelled DNA and add varyin
gmail.com>
Reply-To: Mohammad Khan <mohdkhan0...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, 21 July 2017 at 14:32
To: "CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK" <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: [ccp4bb] Off topic: Flourescence anisotropy measurement
Dear all,
I am trying to measure the difference in polariz
Hello,
What is your difference between the maximum and minimum value ? Have you
try to change the probe concentration?
Best,
Didier
Le 21 juil. 2017 15:34, "Mohammad Khan" a écrit :
Dear all,
I am trying to measure the difference in polarization upon the binding of
FP is the ratio between two fluorescence measurements; if the fluorescence
signal is too low, you will still get a ratio but it will be essentially noise.
Try to perform the measurements at 10-50 nM DNA. If your binding affinity is in
the low nM range, you may have to use other methods to
Dear all,
I am trying to measure the difference in polarization upon the binding of
the DNA to my protein. I take 1-5 nM of Cy3-labelled DNA and add varying
dilutions of my protein to it (100 microM to 1 nM). I do get a decrease in
difference of polarization with decrease in protein
14 matches
Mail list logo