Jci_page_head_homepage_01 Jci_page_head_homepage_02
Michael Ohh, Yuichiro Takagi, Teijiro Aso, Charles E. Stebbins, Nikola P. Pavletich, Bert Zbar, Ronald C. Conaway, Joan Weliky Conaway, William G. Kaelin Jr.
Published in Volume 104, Issue 11
J Clin Invest. 1999; 104(11):1583–1591 doi:10.1172/JCI8161
Abstract | Full text | PDF
Options: View larger image (or click on image)
Medium
Figure 1

Disruption of elongin B and elongin C interaction by an elongin C–derived peptide. (a) 35S-labeled elongin B in vitro translate was incubated with glutathione Sepharose preloaded with GST-elongin C in the absence of peptide (lane 2), in the presence of increasing amounts of a synthetic peptide corresponding to elongin C residues 17–50 (lanes 3–5; 0.5, 2.5, 10 μg, respectively), or in the presence of 10 μg of a sequence-scrambled elongin (17–50) peptide. (b) 35S-labeled elongin C in vitro translate was incubated with glutathione Sepharose preloaded with GST-elongin B in the absence (lane 2) or presence (lanes 3–6) of elongin C peptides as in a. Bound proteins were resolved by SDS-PAGE and detected by fluorography. Comparable recovery of the GST fusion proteins in each lane was confirmed by Coomassie blue staining. Twenty-five percent of the in vitro translate used per binding reaction was loaded directly in lane 1.