Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Chim Acta. 2009 Jun 21;406(1-2):151–155. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2009.06.018

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Both mCRP and PEt-bound CRP are more potent than CRP in binding to E-LDL. CRP and mCRP were added to E-LDL-coated wells. Bound CRP and mCRP were detected by using anti-CRP antibody. (A) Comparison of the binding of CRP and mCRP to E-LDL. A representative of three experiments is shown. (B) Increasing concentration of mCRP, with and without 10 mmol/l PEt, was added to E-LDL-coated wells. A representative of three experiments is shown. (C) Increasing concentration of CRP and mCRP, with and without 10 mmol/l PEt, was added to E-LDL-coated wells. A representative of two experiments is shown. (D) Relative E-LDL-binding capacity of CRP and mCRP, in the absence and presence of PEt. Values on the x-axis were derived from the experiment shown in Fig. 3C, and represent the relative concentration of CRP and mCRP, in the absence and presence of PEt, required for their equivalent binding to E-LDL.