TrueBlot^(R) ULTRA: Anti IgG HRP  

Goat TrueBlot^(R) IP / Western Blot: Jurkat cell lysate (0.5 ml of 1x10e7 cells/ml) was incubated with goat anti-human Stat1 and immunoprecipitated using Protein G. Precipitate from 5x10e5 cells was subjected to electrophoresis, transferred to a PVDF membrane, and Western blotted with anti-Stat1 using Goat TrueBlot^(R) ULTRA: Anti-Goat IgG HRP (lane 1) and conventional HRP-conjugated anti-goat polyclonal antibody (lane 2).

Pharmacokinetic profile of TRAIL-Trimer and native TRAIL determined by western blot. Mice were injected intravenously with equimolar amounts of TRAIL-Trimer (40？mg/kg) or native TRAIL (15？mg/kg) (n？=？3 for each protein). (a,c) Relative serum concentrations of both TRAIL-Trimer (a) and native TRAIL (c) were evaluated at periodic intervals by western blotting. TRAIL proteins were immunoblotted with an antibody against human TRAIL, and visualized by chemiluminescence with HRP conjugated TrueBlot anti-goat IgG (1:2000 dilution) (p/n 18-8814-33). The images were acquired using the ChemiDoc Touch Imaging System (Bio-Rad) and the quantification of the amount of TRAIL proteins present in each sample was done using Image Lab software (Bio-Rad). Fig 5. PMID:？28827692

An example of IP evaluation. (A) Immunoblot analysis of IRF4 protein expression in BCR activated B1-8hi？splenic B cells at indicated time. αTUBULIN; internal control. 1.25？× 104？cells were loaded per sample. (B) Evaluation of IRF4 IP 24 and 72？h post BCR activation. Left: Immunoblot analysis using αIRF4 antibodies for IP. IgG; control IgG. Goat TrueBlot was used for secondary antibody staining. To detect IP samples in IB, the TrueBlot series (Rockland) reduced detection of immunoglobulin heavy and light chains. (Right) Table indicates the details of IP procedure and sample amounts loaded for immunoblot analysis.

a)？Immunoblot analysis of LPL under reducing (left) and non-reducing (right) conditions in gonadal WAT lysates of 12-week-old mice (n？=？4 mice per WT and DKO, and 2 mice per？Sel1LAdipCre？and？Atg7AdipCre). Stats shown comparing？DKO？vs.？Sel1LAdipCre？(P？=？0.01) by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test.？b)？Immunoblot analysis of LPL in gonadal WAT lysates of 12-week-old mice fractionated in 1% NP40 (S, soluble; P, pellet). HSP90 and H2A, loading controls for S and P fractions, respectively (n？=？3 mice per genotypes).？c)？Immunoblot analysis of LPL in gonadal WAT lysates of 5- and 12-week-old WT and？DKO？mice fractionated in 1% NP40 as in b (n？=？3 mice per group). LPL*: insoluble LPL that is resistant to heat and β-Mercaptoethanol (β-ME).？Fig 6. PMID:？37253728

a,？b)？Immunoblot analysis following immunoprecipitation of endogenous LPL in gonadal WAT (n？=？3 mice each).？Fig 5. PMID:？37253728

a,？b)？EndoH analysis of LPL in gonadal WAT using Western blot with quantitation of percentage of EndoH resistant LPL in (b) (n？=？6 for WT, 3 for？Sel1LAdipCre, 4 for？Atg7AdipCre？and？DKO). s, i and r, EndoH sensitive, intermediate and resistant, respectively. Fig 4. PMID:？37253728

a)？Immunoblot analysis following immunoprecipitation of endogenous LPL in differentiated adipocytes (3 independent repeats).？b)？Immunoblot analysis of LPL in differentiated adipocytes pre-treated with Brefeldin A for 30？min followed by cycloheximide (CHX) treatment for the indicated times (2 independent repeats).？c)？Immunoblot analysis of LPL in differentiated adipocytes (3 independent repeats).？d)？Immunoblot analysis of LPL and other proteins in gonadal WAT. Fig 3. PMID:？37253728