Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

nitrocellulose or PVDF


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 almost a doctor

almost a doctor

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
15
Good

Posted 04 August 2009 - 08:17 AM

Hello, I'm currently setting western blot in my lab (from having nothing), and I was wondering what are people's preferences on membranes and why.

Nitrocellulose or PVDF?

all your thoughts will be welcomed :(

#2 Roo

Roo

    Enthusiast

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 04 August 2009 - 08:42 AM

I prefer PVDF. Many years ago my lab was having trouble with our nitrocellulose so we switched to some PVDF we had stashed in a drawer. The Westerns started working again so I have never switched back. I don't know if the nitrocellulose had gone bad or if it just wasn't the best choice for our proteins at that time.

We sometimes save our blots for stripping/reprobing at a later date. We found that the nitrocellulose is more brittle so it falls apart during the stripping after being stored for too long while the PVDF doesn't have this problem.

Some of the manufacturer's of these membranes have good product literature/comparisons on the different types of membranes. I have used GE Healthcare/Amersham, Millipore, and others. Below is a link to literature by Millipore. Scroll down to the table that compares the membranes. Maybe it will help you decide what is best for your applications.

Comparison of PVDF and Nitrocellulose Membrane Attributes and Applications
Millipore

#3 mdfenko

mdfenko

    an elder

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,709 posts
123
Excellent

Posted 04 August 2009 - 12:28 PM

we used small pore (0.2um) supported nitrocellulose for routine westerns and glycoprotein stains (chromogenic), pvdf for sequencing (edman degradation).

the support made the nitrocellulose strong enough and it was cheaper than pvdf (especially when buying by the roll).

Edited by mdfenko, 04 August 2009 - 12:29 PM.

talent does what it can
genius does what it must
i do what i get paid to do

#4 almost a doctor

almost a doctor

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
15
Good

Posted 06 August 2009 - 02:49 AM

Thanks for your comments. I had heard before too that PVDF is more resilient and hence easier to handle, that supported nitrocellulose might be worth a try.

What about binding properties? I'm intending to transfer and probe really small amounts of protein, so I guess my choice is going to be determined by that too... should I just try both?

#5 little mouse

little mouse

    Missele, the little mouse

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 06 August 2009 - 03:03 AM

Then I would go for PVDF. But you might have more background with PVDF than with nitrocellulose (depending on the antibody you use, with good antibodies I don't have background with PVDF)

#6 mdfenko

mdfenko

    an elder

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,709 posts
123
Excellent

Posted 06 August 2009 - 11:16 AM

both have sufficient binding capacity for small amounts of protein. pvdf has more capacity than nc so would be preferred for larger amounts of protein.
talent does what it can
genius does what it must
i do what i get paid to do

#7 Mats_Nilsson

Mats_Nilsson

    member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 12 February 2010 - 10:15 AM

both have sufficient binding capacity for small amounts of protein. pvdf has more capacity than nc so would be preferred for larger amounts of protein.


Smack my face if I am wrong here: This is all ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE! Why is research littered with non-fact based opinions? There have been studies done by "electrophoresis/transfer studs" elucidating many of these matters (transfer buffer, wet vs. semidry, nitro vs. PVDF etc). Charged nylon appears to be great depending on the application. 0.2 um pore-size nitro has a higher binding efficiency than PVDF (presumably 0.45 um). Of course binding is dependent upon the idividual protein itself, but in general there are some clear-cut info out there.

This is just one example and perhaps not the best (perform the PubMed search for other articles)

Electrophoresis. 1990 Jan;11(1):46-52.

Important parameters in semi-dry electrophoretic transfer.
Jacobson G, Kårsnäs P.

HERE IS SOME CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE (Remember that Pluskal has a patent on Immobilon + he washes the membranes after transfer 15 min at pH 10);

J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1988;1(4):333-9.

Improved HIV antiglycoprotein antibody detection by immunoblotting on a hydrophobic membrane.
Lauritzen E, Pluskal M.





As a rule I would suggest a two-step wet transfer with 0.2 um nitro membranes as described by (the question is do you have the patience?):

Anal Biochem. 1987 May 1;162(2):370-7.

A two-step procedure for efficient electrotransfer of both high-molecular-weight (greater than 400,000) and low-molecular-weight (less than 20,000) proteins.
Otter T, King SM, Witman GB.

Everybody: Have a nice day and quit the anecdotal evidence thing. You are confusing new and upcoming students/researchers including myself.

Edited by Mats_Nilsson, 12 February 2010 - 10:47 AM.


#8 mdfenko

mdfenko

    an elder

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,709 posts
123
Excellent

Posted 12 February 2010 - 11:31 AM

smack...

see my reply to your other post...

Edited by mdfenko, 12 February 2010 - 11:32 AM.

talent does what it can
genius does what it must
i do what i get paid to do




Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.