Competitive fluorescence polarization measurement and data evaluation were performed as described by Simon and collaborators [62]. Four different fluorescent peptides were used f16E6 (fluorescein‐RTRRETQL), fRSK1 (fluorescein‐KLPSTTL), fpRSK1 (fluorescein‐KLPpSTTL), and MERS‐CoV. The MERS‐CoV peptide was labeled with sub‐stoichiometric FITC (Sigma‐Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) in a basic HEPES buffer (pH 8.2), and the reaction was stopped with 100 mm TRIS. The peptide was buffer exchanged in order to remove fluorescent contaminants. Fluorescence polarization was measured with a PHERAstar (BMG Labtech, Offenburg, Germany) microplate reader by using 485 ± 20 and 528 ± 20 nm band‐pass filters (for excitation and emission, respectively). In direct FP measurements, a dilution series of the Ni‐ and Amylose‐affinity purified MBP‐PDZ proteins was prepared in a 20 mm HEPES pH 7.5 buffer that contained 150 mm NaCl, 0.5 mm TCEP, 0.01% Tween 20, and 50 nm fluorescently labeled peptide. In total, the polarization of the probe was measured at 8 different protein concentrations. In competitive FP measurements, the same buffer was supplemented with the protein to achieve a complex formation of 60–80%, based on the direct titration. Then, this mixture was used for creating a dilution series of the competitor (i.e., the studied peptides) and the measurement was carried out identically as in the direct experiment. Analysis of FP experiments was carried out using ProFit.
Do you have any questions about this protocol?
Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this article to respond.