4.8 Article

Systematic Study of in Vitro Selection Stringency Reveals How To Enrich High-Affinity Aptamers

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 145, 期 1, 页码 194-206

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.2c09522

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The selection stringency, specifically the target concentration, affects the outcome of SELEX. Excessively high target concentrations promote enrichment of low-affinity binders and suppress the enrichment of high-affinity aptamers. Understanding these principles is crucial for obtaining high-quality aptamers.
Aptamers are oligonucleotide receptors with great potential for sensing and therapeutic applications. They are isolated from random libraries through an in vitro method termed systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment (SELEX). Although SELEX-based methods have been widely employed over several decades, many aspects of the experimental process remain poorly understood in terms of how to adjust the selection conditions to obtain aptamers with the desired set of binding characteristics. As a result, SELEX is often performed with arbitrary parameters that tend to produce aptamers with insufficient affinity and/or specificity. Having a better understanding of these basic principles could increase the likelihood of obtaining high-quality aptamers. Here, we have systematically investigated how altering the selection stringency in terms of target concentration -which is essentially the root source of selection pressure for aptamer isolation -affects the outcome of SELEX. By performing four separate trials of SELEX for the same small-molecule target, we experimentally prove that the use of excessively high target concentrations promotes enrichment of low-affinity binders while also suppressing the enrichment of high-affinity aptamers. These findings should be broadly applicable across SELEX methods, given that they share the same core operating principle, and will be crucial for guiding selections to obtain high-quality aptamers in the future.

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

4.8
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