CONFOCALMICROSCOPY Archives

May 2006

CONFOCALMICROSCOPY@LISTS.UMN.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Phil Woost <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 23 May 2006 16:57:46 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

We recently purchased anti-PCNA (and the corresponding blocking peptide) for
use as a marker of cell proliferation. Mouse proximal tubule cells (renal
epithelial cells) were grown on collagen-coated chamber slides or
semipermeable supports. Cells were fixed, treated with 10 mM citrate, pH 6,
(for antigen retrieval), permeabilized, and incubated with anti-PCNA (1:100)
followed by an AlexaFluor-IgG conjugate. Immunofluorescence showed that most
of the immunoreactive material (approximately 80%) was localized to the
cytosol, and only 10 - 20% was found in the nucleus. The blocking peptide
effectively competed away about 80% of the immunofluorescence. --- The
expectation was that most of the immunoreactive material would be found in
the nuclei of actively dividing cells and thus serve as a suitable marker of
proliferation. Only a small amount, if any, was expected in the cytosol. Can
you help explain my results? Alternatively, can you suggest another marker
for cell proliferation?

Thanks,

Phil

ATOM RSS1 RSS2