These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Systematic comparison of technical details in CBB methods and development of a sensitive GAP stain for comparative proteomic analysis.
    Author: Wang X, Wang D, Wang D, Wang H, Chang L, Yi X, Peng M, Guo A.
    Journal: Electrophoresis; 2012 Jan; 33(2):296-306. PubMed ID: 22222974.
    Abstract:
    Considering the importance of CBB staining in visualizing proteins in 2-DE gels, any improvement in the existing protocols with high sensitivity and good MS compatibility is of significant importance. In this study, we systematically evaluated the effects of different staining parameters on CBB methods by 1-DE and 2-DE, and demonstrated that G-250 was more suitable for visualizing low-abundant proteins as well as generating more spots than R-250, whereas R-250 had a superior capability for quick staining of high-abundant proteins. The staining produced by mixing G-250 and R-250 in different ratios showed similar sensitivity. Compared with acetic acid, phosphoric acid produced more protein spots. Ammonium-based stain demonstrated a superior sensitivity than the aluminum-based one. Based on these findings, a new protocol using CBB G-250, ammonium sulfate and phosphoric acid (GAP) was developed by incorporating the fixation, sensitization and staining procedures together. The comparison of GAP with other methods revealed that GAP generated more protein spots and had wider applications. The identification of 11 proteins demonstrated that GAP was not only compatible with MS but also obviously reduced in vitro protein modification, and thus could be a preferable protocol in the future proteomic analysis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]