Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Sep 27.
Published in final edited form as: Biochem Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 19;142:204–215. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2017.07.015

Figure 5. SCAM protection analysis of S1 and S2 binding pockets.

Figure 5.

(A) Immunoblots of the surface pool of DAT Cys mutants in the rDAT E2C background purified with MTSEA-biotin in the absence (−) or presence of MFZ 2–24 (+, 10 μM; ++, 50 μM). (B) Quantification of DAT bands in A and total DAT expression (data not shown) were determined using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health). Surface samples were normalized to total DAT then expressed as a percent of MFZ 2–24-treated samples (black bars) to the respective untreated samples (white bars). These data represent three or more independent experiments. Significant differences between treated and untreated samples were determined with a paired Student’s t-test *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01.