The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Anti tap antibody

Manufactured by Thermo Fisher Scientific
Sourced in Italy

The Anti-TAP antibody is a laboratory reagent used for protein purification and identification. It binds to the Tandem Affinity Purification (TAP) tag, which is a protein tag commonly used to facilitate the isolation of protein complexes from cell lysates. The antibody can be used in various applications, such as immunoprecipitation and Western blotting, to detect and purify TAP-tagged proteins.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

8 protocols using anti tap antibody

1

Endogenous Protein Detection by Western Blot

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Western blot detection of endogenous proteins was performed using the following antibodies: p73 (Abcam, ref: ab215038), E2F4 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, ref. sc-398543X), E2F5 (Genetex, ref. GTX129491), DP1 (Abcam, ref. ab124678), p130 (Cell Signaling, ref. 13610S) β-actin (clone C4, MP Biomedicals), and GAPDH (6C5, ref. sc-32233, Santa Cruz). Detection of tagged constructs was done using: HA-peroxidase antibody (Roche, ref: 12013819001), anti-TAP antibody (Thermofisher Scientific, ref. CAB1001), anti-Flag antibody (Sigma, ref. F3165) antibody, and anti-Gluc antibody (New England Biolabs, ref. E8023).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Quantifying Snf1/AMPK Phosphorylation

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
To assess the Snf1/AMPK phosphorylation state, cells were quenched using 6% TCA (Merck Life Science, Milan, Italy). Then, the cells were lysed in UREA buffer (6 M UREA, 1% SDS, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 5 mM EDTA) in the presence of an equal volume of acid-washed glass beads (Merck Life Science, Milan, Italy) by 10 vortex/ice cycles of 30 sec each. Crude extracts were denatured in SDS sample buffer (40% glycerol, 20% β-mercaptoethanol, 9.2% SDS, 0.25 mM Tris-HCl pH 6.8, 0.01% BBF) and heated for 5 min at 95 °C.
Western blot analysis was conducted with anti-phosphoT172-AMPK antibody (Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA, USA), anti-His antibody (Merck Life Science, Milan, Italy), and anti-TAP antibody (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Densitometric analyses were conducted with ImageJ software v1.51 (NIH, http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/, accession date 23 April 2018).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

ChIP-qPCR Analysis of Protein Binding

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Cross-linking, extract preparation, and sonication were performed as in Ausubel et al. (2010) . Subsequent procedures with anti-TAP antibody (Thermo Scientific) and protein A-coated Dynabeads (Life Technologies) were performed as in van Attikum et al. (2004) (link). qPCR was performed with a Rotor-Gene Q (Qiagen) using the primers listed in Supplemental Table S3. Reported values correspond to the signal for each site relative to an internal control (GIT1) divided by the same ratio of sites within input. The mean and standard deviation of three or more biological replicates are presented. Statistical significance was determined by pairwise Student’s t-tests.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Chromatin Immunoprecipitation of TAP-Tagged Proteins

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Chromatin immunoprecipitation of TAP-tagged Fob1 and Sir2 [80 (link)] and quantitative PCR were performed as described [27 (link)] using Anti-TAP antibody (2 μl per IP, Thermo Scientific) for the immunoprecipitation. For the Sld3-13xMyc and Mcm4-13xMyc ChIP experiments, cells were arrested in G1 with alpha factor prior to the chromatin preparation. Antibody used: anti-Myc, 9E10 from culture supernatant.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Western Blotting of EsxA and TAP-tagged RNases

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Strains for western blotting were lysed as described in the CLASH protocol. Forty mg of protein was resolved on 8% or 15% polyacrylamide gels and transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane. Membranes were blocked for 1 h in blocking solution (5% non-fat milk, 0.1% Tween-20 in PBS). Primary antibody probing was performed overnight at 4 °C using anti-EsxA109 (link) (1/500) or the anti-TAP antibody (1/5000, ThermoFisher) to detect tagged RNases. The membrane was then washed three times in PBST (PBS with 0.1% Tween-20) and visualised using an HRP-linked goat anti-rabbit antibody (1/500, Abcam) and Pearce enhanced chemiluminescence solutions (ThermoFisher).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Protein Extraction and Western Blot Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Samples of cells were lysed using ice-cold lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 0.1% NP-40, 10% glycerol) plus 1 mM PMSF (phenylmethanesulfonylfluoride), proteases inhibitor mix (Complete EDTA free Protease Inhibitor Cocktails Tablets, Roche) and phosphatase inhibitor mix (Cocktail 2, Sigma-Aldrich). Protein concentration was determined using the Bio-Rad protein assay. Western blot analysis was performed using anti-HA antibody (Roche), anti-phosphoT172-AMPK antibody (Cell Signalling), anti-His antibody (Sigma-Aldrich) or anti-TAP antibody (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Densitometric analysis was performed by using the ImageJ software (NIH, http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Quantifying SUMOylated Ntg1 Variants

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The steady-state level of each Ntg1-TAP fusion protein variant was assessed by immunoblotting whole cell lysates with the rabbit polyclonal anti-TAP antibody (1:3,333 dilution, Open Biosystems) to determine the relative level of differentially modified Ntg1 products. An anti-3-phosphoglycerate (PGK) antibody (1:10,000 dilution; Invitrogen) was used as a control determine the relative level of protein lysate loaded into each lane.
The analysis of immunoblots was performed utilizing the ECL Plex immunoblotting detection system (Amersham), the Typhoon Trio variable mode imager (GE Healthcare), and the ImageQuant TL software package (GE Healthcare). To quantify the percentage of modified Ntg1-TAP, the ratio of modified Ntg1 bands to total Ntg1 signal (including modified and unmodified) was determined for wildtype Ntg1 and each lysine to arginine amino acid substitution variant of Ntg1. Previous work demonstrates that modified Ntg1 contains at least one covalently linked SUMO and the size of higher bands is consistent with multiple SUMO additions(24 (link)). Standard error of the mean was calculated for each. The two-sample Student’s t-test was employed to test for significance (α=0.05).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Tandem Affinity Purification of FACT Complex

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
FACT was purified from an Spt16-TAP (Tandem Affinity Purification) yeast strain using the TAP purification procedure (32 (link)). For each purification, 2 L of yeast culture (OD600 of ∼3.0) was spun down and cells were lysed in NP-40 buffer (15 mM Na2HPO4, 10 mM NaH2PO4, 1% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 2 mM EDTA, 1 mM DTT, 1× Protease inhibitor cocktail) by bead beating. After centrifugation, the cleared cell lysate was incubated with IgG Sepharose fast flow beads (GE Healthcare). FACT bound to the beads was released by digestion with Tobacco Etch Virus protease (TEV protease, Invitrogen) overnight at 4°C. FACT was subsequently bound by Calmodulin Sepharose beads (GE Healthcare) in the presence of 3 mM CaCl2. After extensive washes, FACT was eluted with the elution buffer containing 20 mM EGTA. The presence of FACT in each eluted fraction was checked by western blotting with an anti-TAP antibody (Open Biosystems). The peak fractions were combined and FACT was concentrated using Amicon Ultra-0.5 ml concentration columns (Millipore). EGTA was diluted during the concentration process.
+ 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!