Advertisement

Effects of Detergents on Isolated Rat Lymphocyte Plasma Membranes

  • D. N. Misra
  • C. T. Ladoulis
  • L. W. Estes
  • T. J. GillIII

Abstract

For several years we have been studying the genetic control of the immune response in inbred rats by immunochemical procedures for assaying antibody and by kinetic analysis of the production of antibody forming cells. These studies have been carried out using a chemically defined synthetic polypeptide antigen poly(Glu52Lys33Tyr15) in high and low responder strains of rats (1). We are now purifying lymphoid cells in order to explore the chemical basis of the genetic control mechanisms by isolating and characterizing the membrane components which may be involved in the interaction with antigen. Since the membrane proteins and glycoproteins are integral components of the liquid crystalline structure of the plasma membrane, their isolation depends upon dissociation from their native semicrystalline environment into a liquid phase suitable for studies of their binding activity, molecular structure and biological function. The methods of dissociation employ certain assumptions about the effects of solubilization on the structure and function of membrane components. Although the various detergents used for isolation of membrane components are classified as anionic, cationic or nonionic, there is no reliable means of predicting the results of solubilization either in terms of the degree of solubilization or with respect to their selectivity for different macromolecules. For this reason, the selection of these agents is based upon empirical results.

Keywords

Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate Splenic Lymphocyte Detergent Concentration Isolate Plasma Membrane Thymic Lymphocyte 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    T.J. Gill III, H. W. Kunz, D. J. Stechschulte and K. F Austen, J. Immunol., 105, 14 (1970).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Coleman and J. B. Finean, Protoplasma, 63, 172 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. C. Widnell, J. Cell Biol., 52, 542 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Allan and M. J. Crumpton, Biochem. J., 120, 133 (1970).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Allan and M. J. Crumpton, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 274, 22 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. R. Phillipsand M. Morrison, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 40, 284 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. A. Nelson, J. Biol. Chem., 246, 3895 (1971).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. W. Uhr and E. S. Vitetta, Fed. Proc., 32, 35 (1973).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Philippot, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 225, 201 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. N. Misra
    • 1
  • C. T. Ladoulis
    • 1
  • L. W. Estes
    • 1
  • T. J. GillIII
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations