JCB logo
CrossRef
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF, 843K)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wolf, D. E.
Right arrow Articles by Ziomek, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wolf, D. E.
Right arrow Articles by Ziomek, C. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Journal of Cell Biology, Vol 96, 1786-1790, Copyright © 1983 by The Rockefeller University Press


ARTICLES

Regionalization and lateral diffusion of membrane proteins in unfertilized and fertilized mouse eggs

DE Wolf and CA Ziomek

The unfertilized mouse egg has a round and highly villated main body and a "nipple" that is unvillated and buds off on fertilization to form the second polar body. Fluorescent markers stain the body more intensely than the nipple, which has been assumed to result from surface amplification due to microvilli. Using fluorescence recovery after photobleaching and microfluorescence photometry, we have measured the membrane protein diffusion and concentration on the main body and nipple region of unfertilized and on fertilized CD-1 mouse eggs. Two general membrane protein labels were used: rhodamine-labeled succinylated concanavalin A and trinitrobenzene sulfonate visualized with a rhodamine Fab fragment of a sheep anti-trinitrophenyl. We found that while the diffusion coefficient was the same on the nipple and main body, considerably higher recovery was observed on the nipple for both probes. The ratio of intensity of fluorescence on the nipple to main body was significantly lower for the concanavalin A stain than for the trinitrophenyl stain, indicating that true concentration gradients exist beyond those that result from surface amplification. The effect of fertilization was not general. No effect was observed for the concanavalin A stain for either diffusion coefficient or percent recovery. For the trinitrophenyl stain, percent recovery decreased approximately twofold while diffusion coefficient increased approximately threefold.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:



  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents