4.4 Article

Application of a split luciferase complementation assay for the detection of viral protein-protein interactions

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
卷 176, 期 1-2, 页码 108-111

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2011.04.028

关键词

Viral disease; Protein-protein interaction; Split luciferase complementation assay

资金

  1. NSF/EPSCoR [0091948]
  2. Center of Excellence in Drought Tolerance through the South Dakota 2010 Initiative
  3. South Dakota Agri. Exp. Station
  4. South Dakota 2010 Research Center
  5. BCAAP (Biological Control and Analysis of Applied Photonics) [3SG163]
  6. South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station [3AH203]
  7. NIAID [A1078177]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intraviral protein-protein interactions are critical for virus survival in the host. Discovery of such interactions is important to understand molecular mechanisms of viral replication and pathogenesis. The development of a cell-based assay that can be employed to examine systematically viral protein interactions is described. The method, known as the split luciferase complementation assay (SLCA), is based on the principle that N- and C-terminal domains of luciferase alone do not emit luminescence; however, if fused to interacting proteins the two non-functional halves can be brought into close enough proximity through a specific protein-protein interaction to restore the functions of the enzyme and emit detectable light. The well-studied influenza B polymerase acidic protein (PA) and basic protein 1 (PB1) interaction was used as a model system to develop the assay. Consistent with previous studies, a strong PA-PB1 interaction was demonstrated in the assay. The PA-PB1 interaction was also disrupted by single amino acid mutations in the N-terminal domain of PB1 that is responsible for binding PA. The described SLCA is highly specific and easy to perform, and thus may be useful for studying protein-protein interactions in viral diseases. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据