Which method is best for GCL assay and Why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TytoAlba95
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method
AI Thread Summary
When choosing a protocol for estimating Glutamate Cysteine ligase (GCL) activity, two methods are discussed: Dasgupta 2007 and Seelig 1985. Dasgupta's method measures GCL activity by assessing the formation of a blue compound through the reaction of inorganic phosphate with ferrous sulfate-ammonium molybdate, focusing on phosphate estimation. In contrast, Seelig's method employs a coupled enzyme assay that measures enzyme activity by tracking the decrease in NADH absorbance at 340 nm, which is linked to the formation of ADP in a reaction mixture containing L-glutamate and L-a-aminobutyrate.The preference leans towards the coupled enzyme assay due to its ability to provide a more specific measurement of enzyme activity, as it accounts for the decrease in NADH rather than relying on the ubiquitous nature of inorganic phosphate. This specificity is seen as a significant advantage in accurately estimating GCL activity.
TytoAlba95
Messages
132
Reaction score
19
I'm trying to choose a protocol for estimating GLutamate Cysteine ligase assay. I've two of them.
Reaction:
L-glutamate + L-cysteine + ATP
\rightleftharpoons
gamma-glutamyl cysteine + ADP + Pi

#Protocol 1: Dasgupta 2007
Though this method, the author has estimated GCL activity by measuring a blue coloured compound formed by a reaction between Pi and Ferrous sulphate-ammonium molybdate reacgent. She has basicially estimated Phosphate.

#Protocol 2: Seelig 1985
It is a coupled enzyme assay.
The enzyme activity is measured in reaction mixtures containing L-glutamate, L-a-aminobutyrate, and ATP by a coupled enzyme procedure in which the rate of formation of ADP, in the presence of pyruvate kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, phosphoenolpyruvate, and NADH, is obtained from the decrease in the absorbance of NADH at 340 nm.

Which one of these is better and why?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
My take on :
SanjuktaGhosh said:
Which one of these is better and why?

I think doing the double coupled enzyme assay is better over estimating the inorganic phosphate. Because inorganic phosphate is rather ubiquitous and the coupled enzyme assay will estimate the decrease in NADH which is supplied from outside and added to the basal level of NADH present in the tissue extract, which can be substracted.

#Here's a link (Taussky 1953) to the original paper from which Protocol 1 is derived.
 
Deadly cattle screwworm parasite found in US patient. What to know. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2025/08/25/new-world-screwworm-human-case/85813010007/ Exclusive: U.S. confirms nation's first travel-associated human screwworm case connected to Central American outbreak https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-confirms-nations-first-travel-associated-human-screwworm-case-connected-2025-08-25/...
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
14K
Back
Top