The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Phosphate buffer

Manufactured by Merck Group
Sourced in United States, Germany, India, United Kingdom, Spain

Phosphate buffer is a commonly used buffer solution that maintains a stable pH. It is a mixture of sodium phosphate and potassium phosphate salts that helps maintain a consistent pH in aqueous solutions, typically in the range of 6.0 to 8.0. The buffer system is widely used in various laboratory applications that require a controlled pH environment.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

263 protocols using phosphate buffer

1

Ultrastructural Analysis of Mouse Cochlea

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Animals were euthanized and excised inner ears were fixed overnight in 2.5 % gluteraldehyde in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (Sigma-Aldrich). Fixed ears were decalcified for 48 hours in 4.3 % EDTA in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (Sigma-Aldrich). Fine dissection was performed to reveal the organ of Corti, before osmium tetroxide (Agar Scientific)–thiocarbohydrazide (Fluka) processing (adapted from Hunter-Duvar [18 (link)]) was carried out. The inner ears were then dehydrated through increasing strength ethanol solutions (Fisher Scientific) and critical point dried using an Emitech K850 (EM Technologies Ltd). The specimens were then mounted on stubs using silver paint (Agar Scientific) and sputter coated with platinum using a Quorum Q150R S sputter coater (Quorum Technologies). Prepared cochlea were visualised with a JEOL LSM-6010 (Jeol Ltd) scanning electron microscope. Hair cell stereocilia bundle counts were performed by counting the number of adjacent inner hair cells (IHCs) and outer hair cells (OHCs) to ten pillar cells. For the analysis the cochlea was divided into three separate regions (turns), apical (<180° from apex), mid (180–450° from apex), and basal (450–630° from apex). Four ears (one ear per mouse) were analysed for each genotype at each region.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Burst Kinetics of Enzymatic Reactions

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Room-temperature burst kinetics were obtained under burst-phase conditions using an SX20 stopped flow (Applied Photophysics) by monitoring substrate depletion by absorbance at 260 nm. Enzyme and substrate were mixed 1:1 at 25 °C and in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (Sigma-Aldrich, pH 7.2) supplemented with 50 mM NaHCO3 (Sigma-Aldrich). Burst kinetics were assayed at final enzyme concentrations of 10 μM and final substrate concentrations varying between 50 and 400 μM (equation (1)). PE0=vsteady×tvsteadyvburst×1ek×t/k
Catalytic parameters (kcat, KM and kcat/KM) were determined under burst-phase and steady-state conditions using CAZ (Δξ = −9,000 M−1 cm−1) at 260 nm by measuring the initial enzymatic reaction rate in an Epoch plate-reader (Biotek). Burst phase rates were determined at 4 °C, and steady-state parameters were determined at 25 °C. Reactions rates were obtained in at least duplicates at a final enzyme concentration of 1 μM (final assay volume of 100 μl). Ultraviolet-transparent 96-well plates (Corning) were used. Assays were performed in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (Sigma-Aldrich, pH 7.2), supplemented with 50 mM NaHCO3 (Sigma-Aldrich).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Cu(II)-Mediated Oxidative Stress Assay

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The Cu(ii) used was from CuSO4·5(H2O) and purchased from Sigma. A stock solution of Cu(ii) (10 mM) was prepared in ultrapure water. Phosphate buffer was bought from Sigma-Aldrich and dissolved in ultrapure water to reach a 100 mM concentration and pH 7.4. HEPES buffer was bought from Sigma and dissolved in ultrapure water to reach a 0.5 M concentration and pH 7.1. Ascorbate solutions were freshly prepared a few minutes prior to each experiment by dissolving sodium l-ascorbate (Sigma) in ultrapure water. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) solutions were freshly prepared from a 30 wt% H2O solution purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. A stock solution of coumarin-3-carboxylic acid (CCA) 1 mM (from Sigma) was prepared in Phosphate buffer (0.1 M, pH 7.4) at room temperature. Ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and dissolved in ultrapure water to reach a concentration of 40 mM. Sodium dithionite was bought from Sigma-Aldrich and dissolved in ultrapure water a few minutes prior to each experiment.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Analyzing Cell Morphology by Flow Cytometry

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
To reveal cell morphology differences, flow cytometric analysis was performed on a Calibur fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) cytometer (Becton Dickinson) with the following settings: forward scatter (FCS), E00 log; side scatter, 400 V. Control and ethanol-treated cells were harvested at 24, 48, and 72 h, respectively, washed twice with phosphate buffer (pH 7.2) (Sigma-Aldrich), and then resuspended in the same phosphate buffer to a final OD580 of 0.3 (approximately 1.5 × 107 cells mL−1). A total of 5 × 104 cells were used for each analysis according to the method by Marbouty et al. (2009 (link)). Data analysis was conducted using the CellQuest software, version 3.1 (Becton Dickinson).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Copper(II) Buffer and Reagent Preparation

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Cu(ii) used was from CuSO4·5(H2O) and purchased from Sigma. A 2 mM stock solution of Cu(ii) was prepared using ultrapure water and kept at –20 °C. Phosphate buffer was bought from Sigma-Aldrich and dissolved in ultrapure water to obtain a solution of 0.1 M concentration and pH 7.4. HEPES buffer was bought from Sigma and dissolved in ultrapure water to obtain 0.5 M solutions at pH 6.5, 7.0 and 7.4. POPSO buffer was bought from Sigma and dissolved in ultrapure water to obtain 0.5 M solutions at pH 8.0 and 8.5. Ammonium bicarbonate was purchased from Fluka. A stock solution (0.1 M, pH 8.0) was prepared in ultrapure water. Ascorbate solutions were freshly prepared a few minutes prior to each experimental set by dissolving sodium l-ascorbate (Fluka) in ultrapure water. A 1 mM stock solution of coumarin-3-carboxylic acid (CCA) (from Sigma) was prepared using the Phosphate buffer solution (0.1 M, pH 7.4) at room temperature.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Cu(II)-Mediated Oxidative Stress Assay

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The Cu(ii) used was from CuSO4·5(H2O) and purchased from Sigma. A stock solution of Cu(ii) (10 mM) was prepared in ultrapure water. Phosphate buffer was bought from Sigma-Aldrich and dissolved in ultrapure water to reach a 100 mM concentration and pH 7.4. HEPES buffer was bought from Sigma and dissolved in ultrapure water to reach a 0.5 M concentration and pH 7.1. Ascorbate solutions were freshly prepared a few minutes prior to each experiment by dissolving sodium l-ascorbate (Sigma) in ultrapure water. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) solutions were freshly prepared from a 30 wt% H2O solution purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. A stock solution of coumarin-3-carboxylic acid (CCA) 1 mM (from Sigma) was prepared in Phosphate buffer (0.1 M, pH 7.4) at room temperature. Ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and dissolved in ultrapure water to reach a concentration of 40 mM. Sodium dithionite was bought from Sigma-Aldrich and dissolved in ultrapure water a few minutes prior to each experiment.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Antioxidant and Tyrosinase Inhibition Assays

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Acetonitrile (99.9%) was of HPLC grade from Fisher Scientific (Lisbon, Portugal). Phenolic compound standards (chlorogenic acid, ferulic acid, naringenin, p-coumaric acid, quercetin-3-O-glucoside, quercetin-3-O-rutinoside, and taxifolin) were from Extrasynthèse (Genay, France). Formic acid was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, United States). All other general laboratory reagents were purchased from Panreac Química S.L.U. (Barcelona, Spain). Water was treated by using a Milli-Q water purification system (TGI Pure Water Systems, Greenville, SC, United States). Ferric chloride; 6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchromane-2-carboxylic acid (Trolox) (97%); diammonium 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonate) (ABTS) (>98%); 2,2-diphenyl-1-(2,4,6-trinitrophenyl) hydrazine (DPPH); 2,4,6-tris (2-pyridyl)-s-triazine (TPTZ) (≥99%); dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (≥99%); phosphate buffer, mushroom tyrosinase; 3,4-dihydroxy-l-phenylalanine (l-DOPA) (≥98%); and kojic acid were purchased from Sigma (Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH, Schnelldorf, Germany). All other reagents used, including solvents, were of analytical grade.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Bioadhesive Potential of Nanoemulsions

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
As an index of the bioadhesive potential of the formulation, the interaction between the nanoemulsion and mucin was assessed (Mazzarino et al., 2012 (link)). A dispersion of porcine stomach mucin at 250 µg/mL was prepared in phosphate buffer (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, 10 mM, pH 7.4) and incubated with the nanoemulsion (1%, v/v) at 37 °C for 30 min under stirring (100 rpm, n = 3 for each treatment) (Mazzarino et al., 2012 (link); Andreani et al., 2015 (link)). As controls, the mucin dispersion and the nanoemulsion were incubated individually with PBS.
After incubation, samples were diluted (1:100 v/v) in water for assessment of size and zeta potential. Occurrence of nanoemulsion-mucin interactions was indicated by an increase in nanodroplets size and inversion of zeta potential as expected from droplet coating with mucin (da Silva et al., 2016 (link)).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Immunofluorescence Detection of Parvalbumin in Mouse Brains

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
After behavioral tests, mice were then deeply anesthetized with pentobarbital (100 mg/kg, intraperitoneal) and transcardially perfused with saline followed by 4% paraformaldehyde in a 0.1 mol/L phosphate buffer (Sigma‐Aldrich). The brains were removed and post‐fixed in the 4% phosphate‐buffered paraformaldehyde at 4°C overnight, and were then cryo‐protected with 30% (w/v) sucrose. Coronal 30‐μm slices of brains were cut on a freezing sliding microtome (Leica). Brain slices were processed for immunofluorescence for PV (1:1000, Swant PV27), then incubated with primary antibody diluted in phosphate‐buffered saline with 0.15% Triton X‐100 overnight at 4°C. Then they were rinsed with phosphate‐buffered saline and incubated with an Alexa‐488 conjugated secondary fluorescent antibody (1:400, Jackson Immuno Research) at 1 μg/mL for 2 hours at room temperature. The slices were mounted on slides by the Vectashield Mounting Media (Vector Labs) after rinsing, and the immunofluorescence was accessed by using an Olympus microscope (BX61).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Amphiphilic Phosphorus Dendron Synthesis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
We used 10 mM Phosphate buffer, pH 7.4, adjusted with 1 M HCl or 1 M NaOH at 25 °C. 1,2 dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DMPC), 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-rac-(1-glycerol), sodium salt (DMPG), and cholesterol (Chol) lipids were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Darmstadt, Germany). In this work, amphiphilic phosphorus dendrons of the first (D1) and second (D2) generation were prepared and studied according to [37 (link)] (Figure 1). The chemical structure and molar mass of the first-generation dendron were C138H224Cl10N34O7P8S5 and Mw = 3234.13 g/mol, and the chemical structure of the second generation was C268H424Cl20N74O17P18S15 with a molar mass Mw = 6702.27 g/mol. Phosphate buffer, pH 7.4, purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Darmstadt, Germany), was used to isolate the exosomes.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!