Skip to main content
. 2003 Oct 2;100(21):12295–12300. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2032858100

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6.

(a) Processing assay in the presence of protease inhibitors. (b) Identical assay performed in the presence of trapping antibodies (1:2,500 AMA-1 immune serum pool). (A) Lane 1, PMSF (200 μM); lane 2, TLCK (100 μM); lane 3, TPCK (100 μM); lane 4, leupeptin (100 μM); lane 5, chymostatin (100 μM); lane 6, antipain (100 μM); lane 7, E64 (10 μM); lane 8, pepstatin (5 μM); lane 9, 1,10-phenanthroline (1 mM); lane 10, EDTA (1 mM); lane 11, EGTA (1 mM); lane 12, ethanol control; lane 13, DMSO control; lane 14, PBS control. (B) Dose–response of chymostatin, EDTA, and EGTA on AMA-1 processing. Concentrations of inhibitors used from lanes 1–4 were: chymostatin, 100, 50, 25, and 12.5 μM; EDTA and EGTA, 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.25 mM, respectively; lane c, DMSO control; lane c′, PBS control. (C) Processing assay showing the effect of 1 mM MgCl2 or 1 mM CaCl2 added to reverse the EDTA and EGTA (1 mM each) mediated processing inhibition. Lane 1, EDTA; lane 2, EGTA; lane c, PBS control.