Skip to main content
. 2006 Feb 2;25(4):701–712. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600974

Table 2.

Equilibrium binding studies of RPTPμ constructs using surface plasmon resonance

Analyte Dissociation constanta (μM) Goodness-of-fit for nonlinear regression (χ2)
      One-site model Two-sites model
Immobilized ligand: Exμ
  Kd1 Kd2    
MIF1 7.9±0.9 (9.3±0.8) NA 0.4 0.2
MIF2 8.1±0.5 (4.1±0.4) 0.33±0.04 (0.61±0.06) 1.1 0.02
MIF3 9.5±1.0 (4.9±0.5) 0.27±0.06 (0.52±0.03) 2.8 0.1
Exμ 5.5±0.4 (3.4±0.2) 0.18±0.05 (0.60±0.06) 4.8 0.3
         
MIg, F34t No binding up to 50 μM    
IF14t, F14t NDb    
         
Immobilized ligand: MIF1
  Kd1 Kd1′    
MIF1 1.1±0.08 (3.0±0.3) 33±2 (17±1) 7.3 0.05
aExcept for MIF1 binding to immobilized Exμ, which was fitted with a 1:1 binding model, nonlinear fitting for the Req binding curves was performed with the simultaneous two-sites binding model: Req=Conc*Rmax1/(Kd1+Conc)+Conc*Rmax2/(Kd2+Conc). Values in parentheses were obtained when nonlinear fitting of the Req binding curves was performed separately for the two binding sites, as guided by the two linear segments in the Scatchard plots.
bNot determined as the proteins exhibited polydisperse behaviour and nonspecific binding to sensor chip.
NA, not available.