Skip to main content
. 2017 Nov 7;113(9):2088–2099. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2017.08.058

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Substituting K with E reverses selectivity of FGAK gels, whereas replacement of K with R maintains selectivity similar to that of FGAK gels. Shown here are representative (A) hydrophobic (−) and (B) hydrophobic (+) fluorescence images in FGAK gels. (C) Shown here are representative fluorescence images of hydrophobic (−) and hydrophilic (−) reporters in an FGAE gel with the corresponding concentration profiles showing the reversal of selective recognition when compared to FGAK gels with the same reporters. In FGAE gels, anionic reporters do not interact at the gel interface. (D) Shown here are representative fluorescence images of hydrophobic (+) and hydrophilic (+) reporters in an FGAE gel, showing the reversal of selective recognition when compared to FGAK gels. In FGAE gels, the hydrophobic (+) reporter binds more significantly at the interface compared to the hydrophilic (+) reporter. (E) Depicted here are representative fluorescence images of hydrophobic (−) and hydrophilic (−) reporters in an FGAR gel, showing the similarity of selective recognition to that of FGAK gels. (F) Given here are representative fluorescence images of hydrophobic (+) and hydrophilic (+) reporters in an FGAR gel, showing the similarity of selective recognition to that of FGAK gels. Error bars are SDs of at least three independent replicates. ∗p < 0.05 and ∗∗p < 0.01, unpaired Student’s t-test.