TABLE 2

Quantitative comparison of glycoprotein expression in TR_MEgO- and ME_TRgO-infected cellsd

Immunoprecipitation antibodyaExtract inputb (ml)StrainFold differencefMean fold difference (±SD)g
TR_MEgOME_TRgO
DensitycAdjusted densityeDensityAdjusted density
Anti-gH0.0468.42.329.51.02.41.6 (±0.5)
0.13181.66.1163.15.31.1
0.40539.518.0410.613.21.4
1.201,697.756.61,064.034.31.6
Anti-gL0.04NDNDNDNDND1.5 (±0.4)
0.13196.615.1153.811.81.3
0.40645.049.6508.339.11.3
1.202,547.5196.01,269.697.72.0
Anti-gO0.04187.87.8NDNDND19.7 (±1.7)
0.13945.839.4NDNDND
0.402,580.3107.5127.85.818.5
1.2010,502.7437.6460.120.920.9
  • a Seven microliters of rabbit antipeptide serum per immunoprecipitation reaction mixture.

  • b Preparation of radiolabeled cell extracts is described in the legend to Fig. 6 and in Materials and Methods.

  • c Pixel density of bands shown in Fig. 6B as determined using ImageJ version 1.48.

  • d ND, band density not detected.

  • e Density divided by the predicted number of methionine (met) and cysteine (cys) residues: TRgH (17 met, 13 cys), MEgH (17 met, 14 cys), TRgL (3 met, 10 cys), MEgL (3 met, 10 cys), TRgO (16 met, 6 cys), MEgO (18 met, 6 cys).

  • f Adjusted density of TR_MEgO divided by adjusted density of ME_TRgO.

  • g Average fold difference between TR_MEgO and ME_TRgO ± standard deviation.