METHODS: rPkMSP-119 protein was heterologously expressed using Expresso® Solubility and Expression Screening System and competent E. cloni® 10G cells according to protocol. Three rounds of biopanning were performed on purified rPkMSP-119 to identify binding peptides towards rPkMSP-119 using Ph.D.™-12 random phage display library. Binding sites of the identified peptides to PkMSP-119 were in silico predicted using the CABS-dock web server.
RESULTS: Four phage peptide variants that bound to PkMSP-119 were identified after three rounds of biopanning, namely Pkd1, Pkd2, Pkd3 and Pkd4. The sequences of both Pkd1 and Pkd2 consist of a large number of histidine residues. Pkd1 showed positive binding signal with 6.1× vs. BSA control. Docking results showed that Pkd1 and Pkd2 were ideal binding peptides for PkMSP-119 .
CONCLUSION: We identified two novel binding peptides of PkMSP-119 , Pkd1 (HFPFHHHKLRAH) and Pkd2 (HPMHMLHKRQHG), through phage display. They provide a valuable starting point for the development of novel therapeutics.
METHODS: Colon tissues (normal and cancerous) were homogenized and the proteins were extracted using three protein extraction buffers. The extraction buffers were used in an orderly sequence of increasing extraction strength for proteins with hydrophobic properties. The protein extracts were separated using the SDS-PAGE method and the images were captured and analyzed using Quantity One software. The target protein bands were subjected to in-gel digestion with trypsin and finally analyzed using an ESI-ion trap mass spectrometer.
RESULTS: A total of 50 differentially expressed proteins in colonic cancerous and normal tissues were identified.
CONCLUSION: Many of the identified proteins have been reported to be involved in the progression of similar or other types of cancers. However, some of the identified proteins have not been reported before. In addition, a number of hypothetical proteins were also identified.
RESULTS: A set of SREHP gene specific LAMP primers were designed for the specific detection of Entamoeba histolytica. This set of primers recorded 100% specificity when it was evaluated against 3 medically important Entamoeba species and 75 other pathogenic microorganisms. These primers were later modified for conventional PCR, nPCR and qPCR applications. Besides, 3 different post-LAMP analyses including agarose gel electrophoresis, nucleic acid lateral flow immunoassay and calcein-manganese dye techniques were used to compare their limit of detection (LoD). One E. histolytica trophozoite was recorded as the LoD for all the 3 post-LAMP analysis methods when tested with E. histolytica DNA extracted from spiked stool samples. In contrast, none of the PCR method outperformed LAMP as both qPCR and nPCR recorded LoD of 100 trophozoites while the LoD of conventional PCR was 1000 trophozoites.
CONCLUSIONS: The analytical sensitivity comparison among the conventional PCR, nPCR, qPCR and LAMP reveals that the LAMP outperformed the others in terms of LoD and amplification time. Hence, LAMP is a relevant alternative DNA-based amplification platform for sensitive and specific detection of pathogens.