Hubbry Logo
Lysis bufferLysis bufferMain
Open search
Lysis buffer
Community hub
Lysis buffer
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Lysis buffer
Lysis buffer
Lysis buffer
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A lysis buffer is a buffer solution used for the purpose of breaking open cells for use in molecular biology experiments that analyze the labile macromolecules of the cells (e.g. western blot for protein, or for DNA extraction). Most lysis buffers contain buffering salts (e.g. Tris-HCl) and ionic salts (e.g. NaCl) to regulate the pH and osmolarity of the lysate. Sometimes detergents (such as Triton X-100 or SDS) are added to break up membrane structures. For lysis buffers targeted at protein extraction, protease inhibitors are often included, and in difficult cases may be almost required. Lysis buffers can be used on both animal and plant tissue cells.[1]

Choosing a buffer

[edit]

The primary purpose of lysis buffer is isolating the molecules of interest and keeping them in a stable environment. For proteins, for some experiments, the target proteins should be completely denatured, while in some other experiments the target protein should remain folded and functional. Different proteins also have different properties and are found in different cellular environments. Thus, it is essential to choose the best buffer based on the purpose and design of the experiments. The important factors to be considered are: pH, ionic strength, usage of detergent, protease inhibitors to prevent proteolytic processes.[2] For example, detergent addition is necessary when lysing Gram-negative bacteria, but not for Gram-positive bacteria.[3] It is common that a protease inhibitor is added to lysis buffer, along with other enzyme inhibitors of choice, such as a phosphatase inhibitor when studying proteins with phosphorylation.

Components

[edit]

Buffer

[edit]

Buffer creates an environment for isolated proteins. Each buffer choice has a specific pH range, so the buffer should be chosen based on whether the experiment's target protein is stable under a certain pH. Also, for buffers with similar pH ranges, it is important to consider whether the buffer is compatible with the experiment's target protein.[4] The table below contains several most commonly used buffers and their pH ranges.[4]

Buffer pH Range
Sodium dihydrogen phosphate / disodium hydrogen phosphate 5.8 - 8.0
Tris - HCl 7.0 - 9.0
HEPES - NaOH 7.2 - 8.2

Additives

[edit]

Salts

[edit]

Lysis buffer usually contains one or more salts. The function of salts in lysis buffer is to establish an ionic strength in the buffer solution. Some of the most commonly used salts are NaCl, KCl, and (NH4)2SO4. They are usually used with a concentration between 50 and 150 mM.[4]

Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) structure

Detergent

[edit]
Triton X-100 structure

Detergents are organic amphipathic (with hydrophobic tail and a hydrophilic head) surfactants. They are used to separate membrane proteins from membrane because the hydrophobic part of detergent can surround biological membranes and thus isolate membrane proteins from membranes.[5] Although detergents are widely used and have similar functions, the physical and chemical properties of detergents of interest must be considered in light of the goals of an experiment.

Detergents are often categorized as nonionic, anionic, cationic, or zwitterionic, based on their hydrophilic head group feature.[5]

Nonionic detergents like Triton X-100 and zwitterionic detergents like CHAPS (3-[(3-cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio]-1-propanesulfonate) are nondenaturing (will not disrupt protein functions). Ionic detergents like sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and cationic detergents like ethyl trimethyl ammonium bromide are denaturing (will disrupt protein functions).[6] Detergents are a major ingredient that determines the lysis strength of a given lysis buffer.

Detergent-Free Cell Lysis Buffers

[edit]

One common issue faced by many cell lysis buffers is the disruption of protein structures during the lysis process, partially caused by use of detergents. Detergents often prevent the restoration of native conditions necessary for proper protein folding.[7]

For the longest time, after a detergent-based cell lysis, a buffer exchange and/or dialysis had to be performed to remove the detergent among other hindering compounds to restore native conditions.[8]

To overcome this a solution has emerged in the form of a detergent-free cell lysis buffer. The GentleLys buffer employs copolymers instead of detergents, ensuring efficient cell lysis while maintaining the native environment crucial for the correct folding of cellular components, such as proteins.

Others

[edit]

Other additives include metal ions, sugar like glucose, glycerol, metal chelators (e.g. EDTA), and reducing agents like dithiothreitol (DTT).[4]

Commonly used buffers

[edit]

NP-40 lysis buffer

[edit]

It may be the most widely used lysis buffer. The solubilizing agent is NP-40, which can be replaced by other detergents at different concentrations. Since NP-40 is a nonionic detergent, this lysis buffer has a milder effect than RIPA buffer. It can be used when protein functions are to be retained with minimal disruption.[9]

Recipe:[9]

  • 150 mM NaCl
  • 1.0% Nonidet P-40 or Triton X-100
  • 50 mM Tris-Cl
  • Adjust pH to 7.4

RIPA (RadioImmunoPrecipitation Assay) lysis buffer

[edit]

RIPA buffer is a commonly used lysis buffer for immunoprecipitation and general protein extraction from cells and tissues. The buffer can be stored without vanadate at 4 °C for up to 1 year.[10] RIPA buffer releases proteins from cells as well as disrupts most weak interactions between proteins.[9]

Recipe:[10]

  • 1% (w/w) Nonidet P-40 (NP-40)
  • 1% (w/v) sodium deoxycholate
  • 0.1% (w/v) SDS
  • 0.15 M NaCl
  • 0.01 M sodium phosphate, pH 7.2
  • 2 mM EDTA
  • 50 mM sodium fluoride (NaF)
  • 0.2 mM fresh sodium orthovanadate (Na3VO4.2H2O, it has phosphatase inhibitor function because it mimics phosphate)
  • 100 U/ml protease inhibitor, such as aprotinin

SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate) lysis buffer

[edit]

SDS is ionic denaturing detergent. Hot SDS buffer is often used when the proteins need to be completely solubilized and denatured.

Recipe:[10]

  • 0.5% (w/v) SDS
  • 0.05 M Tris⋅Cl
  • Adjust pH to 8.0
  • Add 1 mM fresh dithiothreitol (DTT)

ACK (Ammonium-Chloride-Potassium) lysing buffer

[edit]

ACK is used for lysis of red blood cells in biological samples where other cells such as white blood cells are of greater interest.[11]

Recipe:[12][13]

GentleLys (Gentle Lysis)

[edit]

The GentleLys buffer employs synthetic nanodisc copolymers to gently disrupt the cell membrane, offering a milder alternative to conventional detergent-based lysis buffers. This gentle approach eliminates the need for harsh chemicals, creating an environment that preserves the native state of cellular proteins. Consequently, the proteins maintain their structural integrity and functionality, a marked departure from the denaturing effects of detergent-based buffers.

Detergents, salts & enzymes

[edit]

Cell lysis is a critical step in the purification of enzymes from bacterial cells, various components are commonly included in lysing buffers to facilitate effective cell disruption and release of the target enzyme. These components include detergents, salts, and enzymes, each playing a specific role in the lysis process. Examples of detergents used in lysing buffers include:

Detergents:

Detergents are amphipathic molecules that possess both hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties. In the context of cell lysis, detergents act by disrupting the lipid bilayer of the bacterial cell membrane, leading to membrane permeabilization and release of intracellular components, including the target enzyme.

Commonly used detergents in lysing buffers include:

a. Triton X-100: a nonionic detergent frequently employed due to its mild and effective membrane-disrupting properties, it solubilizes lipids and membrane proteins, allowing the release of intracellular contents.

b. Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS): an anionic detergent that denatures proteins by disrupting their secondary and tertiary structures, it solubilizes cellular membranes and aids in protein extraction.

c. Tween-20: a nonionic detergent is milder compared to SDS and Triton X-100. It assists in membrane permeabilization and solubilization of proteins without causing significant denaturation.

Salts:

Salts are crucial components of lysing buffers as they help maintain optimal cellular conditions and provide ionic strength to facilitate cell disruption.

Commonly used salts in lysing buffers include:

a. Sodium chloride (NaCl): NaCl is often included to maintain isotonic conditions, preventing osmotic shock and cell rupture during the lysis process.

b. Potassium chloride (KCl): Similar to NaCl, KCl can be used to adjust the ionic strength and facilitate cell lysis.

Enzymes:

Certain enzymes are added to lysing buffers to enhance cell lysis by digesting specific cellular components that can interfere with the extraction of the target enzyme.

Examples of enzymes used in lysing buffers include:

a. Lysozyme: Lysozyme breaks down the peptidoglycan layer of bacterial cell walls, weakening their structural integrity and facilitating subsequent disruption. It is particularly effective for Gram-positive bacteria.

b. DNase (Deoxyribonuclease): DNase degrades DNA present in the lysate, reducing its viscosity and preventing DNA-related interference in downstream purification steps.

c. RNase (Ribonuclease): Similar to DNase, RNase degrades RNA in the lysate, reducing its viscosity and minimizing RNA-related interference.

The specific combination and concentrations of detergents, salts, and enzymes in lysing buffers can vary depending on the target enzyme, cell type, and experimental requirements, optimization of these components is crucial to achieve efficient cell lysis while preserving the stability and activity of the desired enzyme during the purification process.

Lysis buffer in DNA and RNA studies

[edit]

In studies like DNA fingerprinting the lysis buffer is used for DNA isolation. Dish soap can be used in a pinch to break down the cell and nuclear membranes, allowing the DNA to be released. Other such lysis buffers include the proprietary Qiagen product Buffer P2.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Lysis buffer

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A lysis buffer is a specialized used in and biochemistry to disrupt cell membranes and release intracellular contents, such as proteins, nucleic acids, and organelles, for downstream applications like extraction, purification, and analysis. These buffers are formulated to preserve the of released cellular contents during while preventing degradation of target molecules, serving as the initial step in many protocols for studying cellular components. Lysis buffers typically include detergents to solubilize lipid bilayers, salts for control, chelating agents such as EDTA to sequester metal ions, and protease or inhibitors to preserve stability. Common detergents include non-ionic types like for gentle lysis of mammalian cells and ionic ones like SDS for more robust disruption in bacterial or plant samples. Buffering agents, often Tris-HCl or phosphate-based, maintain optimal (typically 7-8) to facilitate enzymatic activity and prevent denaturation. Various formulations exist to suit specific cell types and experimental goals, such as RIPA buffer for extracting membrane-bound proteins from adherent cells or milder variants for nuclear extracts. The choice of buffer influences lysis efficiency, protein yield, and compatibility with techniques like Western blotting, PCR, or , ensuring reproducible results in research and diagnostics.

Introduction

Definition and Purpose

A lysis buffer is a buffered containing salts, detergents, chelators, and inhibitors, designed to cellular membranes and release intracellular contents such as proteins, nucleic acids, and organelles while preserving the stability and functionality of these biomolecules through maintenance of optimal and ionic conditions. This formulation ensures controlled without excessive denaturation or degradation of target molecules. The primary purposes of lysis buffers are to achieve efficient cell lysis for downstream extraction and analysis of biomolecules and to stabilize released components by inhibiting enzymatic degradation, such as proteolysis by endogenous proteases or nuclease activity on nucleic acids. For instance, they facilitate the isolation of proteins from cytoplasmic or membrane fractions, nucleic acids like DNA and RNA, and subcellular organelles, enabling their use in various experimental assays. Lysis buffers operate through multiple mechanisms to achieve membrane disruption, including osmotic shock via hypotonic conditions that cause water influx and cell swelling until rupture; detergent-mediated solubilization, where surfactants like SDS or NP-40 integrate into lipid bilayers to fragment membranes; and enzymatic action, often supplemented with agents like lysozyme to degrade peptidoglycan in bacterial cell walls. These complementary processes allow tailored disruption based on cell type, such as mammalian, bacterial, or plant cells. In workflows, lysis buffers are indispensable for preparing samples for techniques like Western blotting, where they extract proteins for electrophoretic separation and immunodetection; PCR, in which they release genomic DNA for amplification; and , serving as the initial step in by providing a compatible lysate for affinity or size-exclusion columns.

Historical Development

The development of lysis buffers originated in the mid-20th century amid advances in techniques, which sought to isolate and study subcellular components. In the 1940s, Albert Claude pioneered methods using mechanical homogenization in isotonic solutions, such as 0.25 M , to disrupt mammalian liver cells while minimizing damage during extraction of cytoplasmic components. These early approaches laid the foundation for controlled , transitioning from crude tissue grinding to quantitative separation of cellular fractions. Building on Claude's work, the 1950s and 1960s saw significant refinements by and collaborators, who employed -based media (e.g., 0.25 M ) in Potter-Elvehjem homogenizers for liver tissue fractionation, enabling the discovery of lysosomes in through enzyme distribution analysis across gradients. Hypotonic conditions were occasionally integrated to induce plasma membrane swelling and selective , facilitating access to organelles without fully disrupting their integrity, as part of broader efforts to map cellular biochemistry. Their contributions were recognized with the in Physiology or Medicine, shared with George E. Palade for advancements in understanding cell structure and function. This era marked the shift from simple saline suspensions to buffered systems optimized for preserving enzymatic activities during isolation. Detergents had been used in cell lysis since the , but in the , their application expanded for protein solubilization in electrophoretic analysis. Ulrich Laemmli's 1970 buffer system, featuring (SDS) at 1-2% for denaturation, transformed protein studies by allowing uniform charging and size-based separation in gels, as demonstrated in T4 head assembly research. By the 1980s, protocols routinely incorporated protease inhibitors like () at 1 mM concentrations to inhibit serine proteases and maintain protein stability post-lysis, a practice that became essential in emerging fields like receptor purification and studies. Post-2000 developments emphasized mild, non-ionic detergents such as (1%) or (0.5-1%) in buffers to support native isolation for , reflecting the rise of mass spectrometry-based workflows. Commercial , often featuring pre-formulated blends with chelators and stabilizers, proliferated for high-throughput applications in and , evolving from basic saline solutions to multifaceted compositions tailored for and protein yield optimization.

Components

Buffering Agents

Buffering agents in lysis buffers play a critical role in maintaining a stable environment during , preventing drastic pH shifts caused by the release of acidic or basic cellular contents that could denature proteins or degrade nucleic acids. These agents ensure physiological compatibility, with most lysis buffers formulated at a pH range of 7 to 8 to mimic intracellular conditions and preserve biomolecular integrity. Among the most commonly used buffering agents is Tris-HCl, which is widely employed due to its effective buffering capacity in the pH range of 7 to 9 and typical concentrations of 10 to 50 mM. Tris-HCl is favored for its cost-effectiveness and availability, though its is sensitive to temperature changes, which can affect consistency in experiments. Another popular option is , which offers superior performance in physiological conditions with a buffering range of pH 6.8 to 8.2 and similar concentrations of 10 to 50 mM; it provides greater stability and lower toxicity compared to alternatives, making it ideal for sensitive applications, albeit at a higher cost. Phosphate buffers are also utilized, particularly in salt-tolerant systems, with an effective range of 5.8 to 8.0 and concentrations up to 100 mM; they are biocompatible but can precipitate in the presence of divalent cations. The selection of a buffering agent relies on its chemical properties, governed by the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, which describes buffer capacity as pH=pKa+log⁡10([A−][HA])\mathrm{pH = pK_a + \log_{10}\left(\frac{[A^-]}{[HA]}\right)}, where pKapK_a is the , and [A⁻] and [HA] are the concentrations of the conjugate base and acid forms, respectively. Buffers are chosen such that their pKapK_a is close to the desired , ensuring maximal resistance to pH changes; for instance, Tris-HCl (pKa≈8.1pK_a \approx 8.1) suits neutral to slightly alkaline conditions, while (pKa≈7.5pK_a \approx 7.5) aligns better with physiological pH. Tris-HCl's volatility facilitates its removal during dialysis steps in downstream purification, but its primary group can interfere with certain assays, such as those involving -reactive . In contrast, provides enhanced pH stability over a broader range and minimal interference with cellular processes, though its expense limits routine use; buffers offer robustness in ionic environments but require careful formulation to avoid incompatibilities with metal ions. These agents are often integrated with salts to control overall , as detailed in the salts and chelators section.

Salts and Chelators

Salts in lysis buffers, such as (NaCl), play a crucial role in maintaining osmotic balance and enhancing membrane permeability during . By regulating , these salts mimic physiological conditions, preventing and ensuring the of released cellular components. Typically, NaCl is included at concentrations of 100-150 mM to achieve this balance, facilitating the disruption of electrostatic interactions without causing excessive precipitation. Chelating agents like ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) or ethylene glycol-bis(β-aminoethyl ether)-N,N,N',N'-tetraacetic acid (EGTA) are added to bind divalent cations such as Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺, thereby inhibiting metal-dependent nucleases and proteases that could degrade nucleic acids and proteins. EDTA, which has a higher affinity for Mg²⁺ than EGTA, is commonly used at 1-5 mM to chelate these ions effectively, preserving the integrity of biomolecules during lysis. EGTA, at similar concentrations, is preferred when selective Ca²⁺ chelation is needed to avoid broader metal interference. The concentration of salts influences lysis efficiency: high salt levels disrupt ionic interactions within membranes, promoting solubilization of hydrophobic proteins, while low salt conditions enable hypotonic by causing osmotic swelling and rupture of cells. In specialized applications, such as ammonium-chloride-potassium (ACK) lysing buffer for erythrocyte , potassium (KCl) contributes to the ionic environment that selectively lyses red blood cells while sparing leukocytes. Conversely, high salt concentrations are avoided in protocols to prevent disruption of antibody-antigen binding and maintain specific protein interactions.

Detergents and Surfactants

Detergents and in lysis buffers are amphiphilic molecules classified based on their polar head groups into ionic, non-ionic, and zwitterionic types, each suited for specific solubilization needs during cell . Ionic detergents, such as (SDS), carry a net charge and are strongly denaturing, binding to proteins and disrupting both hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions to facilitate complete solubilization. Non-ionic detergents, including and , possess uncharged hydrophilic heads and are milder, preserving native protein structures while effectively lysing cells at typical concentrations of 0.1-1%. Zwitterionic detergents, like 3-[(3-cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio]-1-propanesulfonate (), feature both positive and negative charges, offering a balance of mildness for extracting sensitive proteins without excessive denaturation. These detergents function by inserting into bilayers and forming that encapsulate hydrophobic components, leading to disruption and release of intracellular contents. Below the (CMC), detergents exist as monomers that partition into the ; above the CMC, they aggregate into , saturating the bilayer and forming mixed detergent- that solubilize proteins. For instance, SDS has a CMC of approximately 8 mM in water, marking the threshold for effective formation and efficiency. This micellar mechanism ensures targeted extraction while minimizing non-specific aggregation of solubilized components. Ionic detergents like SDS excel in total cell and protein denaturation for applications requiring complete solubilization but can compromise protein functionality due to their harshness. In contrast, non-ionic detergents such as and provide gentler extraction, maintaining protein-protein interactions and enzymatic activity, though they may be less effective against robust membranes. Zwitterionic options like offer intermediate mildness, ideal for integral membrane proteins, but require optimization to avoid incomplete . Selection depends on the target protein's stability and the desired preservation of native conformation. Environmental regulations under the European Union's REACH framework prompted the phase-out of , with a sunset date of January 4, 2021, due to its degradation products' endocrine-disrupting potential, leading to its prohibition in the without authorization. As of 2025, global phase-out of is anticipated, with the biopharmaceutical industry shifting to alternatives such as Tween-20 (a non-ionic with similar micellar properties but lower environmental impact), Virodex TXR-1, and other optimized non-ionic s; recent research (2025) has explored systematic toolboxes to replace it in applications like viral inactivation and cell . This restriction ensures continued effective in compliant formulations.

Inhibitors and Additives

In lysis buffers, inhibitors and additives are essential for safeguarding biomolecules from enzymatic degradation and environmental damage following . These components target specific degradative enzymes or stabilize proteins against oxidation and denaturation, ensuring the integrity of extracted macromolecules for downstream analyses such as Western blotting or enzymatic assays. Protease inhibitors form the cornerstone of these protective measures, often formulated as cocktails to address multiple protease classes released during lysis. For instance, phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) irreversibly inhibits serine proteases at a typical concentration of 1 mM, while aprotinin targets serine proteases at 0.5–10 µg/mL, and leupeptin inhibits both serine and cysteine proteases at 1–50 µg/mL. These cocktails comprehensively block serine, cysteine, and metalloproteases, preventing proteolytic breakdown of target proteins. Nuclease inhibitors are incorporated to preserve nucleic acids, particularly in applications involving or . Lysis buffers are often prepared as RNase- and DNase-free formulations to minimize , with recombinant inhibitors like RNasin added at 1–2 units/µL to non-covalently bind and inactivate RNases A, B, and C, thereby protecting integrity during lysis and handling. For studies of phosphorylation-dependent signaling pathways, phosphatase inhibitors are critical to maintain post-translational modifications. Sodium orthovanadate, a broad-spectrum inhibitor of tyrosine and serine/threonine phosphatases, is commonly used at 1–100 µM as a phosphate mimetic that competitively blocks dephosphorylation events. Additional stabilizers include , added at 5–10% to act as a cryoprotectant and enhance protein hydration and stability during storage, and reducing agents such as (DTT) at 1–5 mM to break disulfide bonds and prevent oxidative damage. Protease inhibitor formulations can be commercial cocktails, such as those from Thermo Fisher or , which offer broad-spectrum protection and long-term stability when stored properly, or homemade mixtures tailored to specific needs; however, the latter face challenges like the short of , approximately 110 minutes at 7 and 25°C, necessitating fresh preparation to maintain efficacy.

Selection and Optimization

Key Factors for Selection

Selecting an appropriate is crucial for achieving efficient while preserving the integrity of target and ensuring compatibility with subsequent analyses. The choice depends on multiple interrelated factors that balance lysis efficiency with biomolecule stability. represents a primary consideration, as composition and structural rigidity vary significantly across organisms. Bacterial cells, particularly Gram-positive strains with thick layers comprising 50-80% of the cell envelope, require robust lysis conditions such as enzymatic treatments with combined with detergents to penetrate the outer barriers effectively. In contrast, mammalian cells possess more fragile bilayers, necessitating milder non-ionic detergents like Tween 20 to avoid excessive protein denaturation or damage. and cells, with their rigid cell walls, often demand mechanical augmentation alongside buffer selection to enhance lysis yield. Regulatory and environmental considerations also influence detergent selection. Certain non-ionic detergents, such as ethoxylates (e.g., and ), are restricted or banned in regions like the since 2021 due to their persistence and toxicity to aquatic life, prompting the use of biodegradable alternatives like polysorbates (Tween series) or other eco-friendly to ensure compliance and sustainability in research and manufacturing as of 2025. The target further guides buffer formulation to maintain functionality and prevent degradation. For native protein extraction, non-denaturing buffers with mild detergents such as are preferred to solubilize cytoplasmic or membrane-bound proteins without disrupting their structure or interactions. isolation, including DNA or , requires buffers that incorporate inhibitors like EDTA to chelate divalent cations essential for DNase and RNase activity, while avoiding ionic detergents that could shear long genomic fragments. Membrane-associated proteins may necessitate stronger ionic components, such as those in RIPA buffers, to fully extract hydrophobic targets from lipid environments. Downstream applications dictate buffer compatibility to minimize interference in analytical workflows. For , low-detergent formulations are essential to reduce ion suppression and improve peptide ionization efficiency, often favoring detergent-free or CHAPS-based buffers. and enzyme assays benefit from buffers preserving protein-protein interactions, such as those with protease inhibitors like , to yield active, non-degraded samples. In contrast, applications like tolerate harsher denaturing conditions for total protein profiling. Sample volume and throughput influence the practicality of buffer selection, with high-volume protocols favoring scalable, gentle buffers for applications like live-cell imaging to maintain viability, whereas small-scale, high-throughput extractions may employ harsher formulations for rapid total protein release. Physiological ranges of 7.0-8.0 are typically selected to stabilize enzymes and proteins, adjustable for specific targets, while incubation at 4°C minimizes thermal denaturation during lysis. may suffice for robust samples but risks without inhibitors.

Strategies for Customization

Customization of lysis buffers involves systematic adjustments to their composition to optimize performance for particular experimental conditions, ensuring effective while preserving target biomolecules. One key strategy is the of concentrations, typically ranging from 0.1% to 2%, to achieve a balance between efficiency and protein ; for instance, concentrations below 0.5% may suffice for mild of fragile mammalian cells, whereas higher levels up to 1-4% SDS are recommended for robust solubilization of membrane proteins in tougher samples. This approach requires iterative testing to avoid excessive denaturation that could impair downstream analyses. Compatibility testing is essential to verify that the customized buffer does not interfere with subsequent assays. Pilot experiments often employ lysis efficiency assays, such as measuring (LDH) release to quantify permeabilization, where complete lysis is indicated by maximal enzyme activity comparable to positive controls treated with dedicated lysis agents. Downstream compatibility is assessed through methods like the Bradford assay, which can be disrupted by high or Tris concentrations in the buffer, necessitating dilutions or alternative quantification techniques to maintain accuracy within 10% error margins. Cell-specific adaptations tailor the buffer to the biological sample's properties. For bacterial cells, enzymatic additives such as at 200 µg/mL are incorporated to degrade in the , enhancing when combined with standard buffers. In cases of resilient eukaryotic or aggregated cells, mechanical aids like are paired with the buffer to provide shear forces that promote disruption without relying solely on chemical agents, often using short pulses to minimize heat-induced protein damage. Troubleshooting common issues further refines buffer customization. Incomplete , often due to insufficient , can be addressed by increasing salt concentrations, such as NaCl to 150-500 mM, to destabilize electrostatic interactions in the . post-lysis is mitigated by adding chaotropes like at 1-8 M, which disrupts hydrophobic interactions and maintains , particularly for recalcitrant proteins. Computational tools facilitate precise adjustments by calculating , targeting physiological levels around 0.15 M to mimic cellular conditions and prevent osmotic shock. Online buffer calculators allow input of component concentrations to compute total ionic strength using the formula I=12∑cizi2I = \frac{1}{2} \sum c_i z_i^2, where cic_i is the and ziz_i the charge of each , aiding in reproducible formulations. Integration of inhibitors, as detailed in specialized sections, can be briefly tested during these optimizations to protect against degradation without altering core buffer dynamics.

Common Formulations

NP-40 Lysis Buffer

The lysis buffer is a mild, non-ionic -based commonly used for cell in biochemical applications. Its standard composition includes 1% (), 150 mM NaCl, and 50 mM Tris-HCl at pH 8.0, with an optional addition of 1 mM EDTA to chelate divalent cations and prevent activity. Note that has been discontinued since the 1990s due to environmental concerns; equivalent non-ionic detergents such as IGEPAL CA-630 or are used in modern formulations. These components are scaled to the desired total volume, typically prepared in 50-100 mL batches for use, ensuring isotonic conditions that mimic physiological while the solubilizes membranes without harsh denaturation. Preparation involves dissolving the Tris-HCl, NaCl, and EDTA (if included) in sterile , followed by addition of the detergent with gentle stirring to avoid foaming. The is adjusted to 8.0 using HCl or NaOH if necessary, and the solution is filter-sterilized through a 0.22 μm to remove particulates and ensure sterility. The buffer is then aliquoted and stored at 4°C, where it remains stable for 1-2 months; longer storage requires freezing at -20°C to prevent degradation of components. This buffer's advantages stem from its mild nature, which preserves native protein complexes during , making it particularly suitable for co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP) studies where maintaining protein-protein interactions is essential. Additionally, the non-ionic causes low interference in downstream assays, allowing accurate measurement of enzymatic activity without significant disruption from residual components. However, its limitations include reduced efficacy against tough cell membranes, such as those in primary tissues or certain bacterial strains, often necessitating additives like ionic detergents or mechanical disruption for complete . NP-40 lysis buffer, utilizing the non-ionic introduced in the mid-20th century, became popular in the for gentle in early protein extraction protocols.

RIPA Lysis Buffer

RIPA lysis buffer, also known as , is a widely used formulation for the extraction of proteins from cultured mammalian cells, particularly effective for obtaining total cell lysates including cytoplasmic, nuclear, and -associated proteins. Its composition typically includes 1% as a non-ionic for initial membrane solubilization, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate and 0.1% SDS as ionic detergents to enhance protein extraction efficiency, 150 mM NaCl to maintain , 50 mM Tris-HCl at pH 7.4 as the buffering agent, and 1 mM EDTA to chelate divalent cations and inhibit metalloproteases. This combination provides a balanced yet robust lysis condition suitable for downstream applications like Western blotting. To prepare RIPA buffer, the core components are mixed in deionized water to a final volume, with the pH adjusted to 7.4 using HCl if necessary, followed by sterile filtration to remove particulates. Protease inhibitors, such as a containing , , and leupeptin, are added fresh immediately before use to prevent protein degradation during . The buffer should be stored at -20°C and used within a few weeks to maintain stability, as repeated freeze-thaw cycles can reduce efficacy. The strengths of RIPA buffer lie in its ability to efficiently lyse a broad range of cell types, including adherent and suspension cultures, making it ideal for extracting signaling proteins like kinases and total cell lysates for quantitative analysis. It is particularly compatible with protocols due to its compatibility with common protein quantification assays like BCA and its low interference with antibody binding. However, drawbacks include its potential to denature sensitive protein complexes due to the presence of SDS, which disrupts non-covalent interactions, and it may not be ideal for extracting certain integral membrane proteins that require milder or specialized detergents to preserve native structure. RIPA buffer originated in the , named after its initial development for use in radio assays (RIPA), where it facilitated the solubilization of radiolabeled proteins for and detection in immunological studies. Over time, its application expanded beyond to general protein extraction due to its versatile lysis properties.

SDS Lysis Buffer

SDS lysis buffer, also known as Laemmli sample buffer, is a denaturing solution primarily used for solubilizing proteins prior to analysis by -polyacrylamide (). Its composition typically includes 1-2% (SDS) as the key denaturant, 50-100 mM Tris-HCl at pH 6.8 to maintain acidity for optimal protein unfolding, and optionally 10% to increase sample for gel loading. A such as 5-10% β-mercaptoethanol or 100 mM (DTT) is added to break disulfide bonds, ensuring complete denaturation; a tracking like 0.001% is also incorporated for visualization during . Preparation of SDS lysis buffer requires careful handling due to the low solubility of SDS at . The buffer is assembled by dissolving SDS in Tris-HCl buffer with gentle heating to 37-50°C, followed by the addition of and the tracking ; reducing agents are introduced last and freshly to prevent oxidation. Post-lysis, cell or tissue samples are mixed with the buffer (typically at 1X concentration) and boiled at 95-100°C for 5 minutes to fully solubilize and denature proteins. This buffer is particularly suited for sample preparation, where it enables the extraction and solubilization of total cellular proteins, including hydrophobic membrane proteins, by coating them with negative charges proportional to their length for size-based separation. It is widely employed in western blotting workflows for downstream protein detection and quantification. However, SDS lysis buffer's strong denaturing properties render it incompatible with assays requiring native protein structures, such as enzyme activity measurements or co-immunoprecipitation. Additionally, its high SDS content can degrade or interfere with RNA integrity, limiting its use in nucleic acid studies. The formulation traces its origins to the seminal Laemmli system developed in 1970 for resolving bacteriophage T4 head proteins, which revolutionized protein electrophoresis. By the 1980s, it had become the standard for denaturing gel electrophoresis in molecular biology labs worldwide due to its reliability and broad applicability.

ACK Lysing Buffer

The ACK lysing buffer, also known as ammonium-chloride-potassium (ACK) buffer, is a specialized formulation designed for the selective lysis of erythrocytes (red blood cells) in blood samples while preserving (white blood cells). Its composition typically includes 0.15 M (NH₄Cl), 10 mM (KHCO₃), and 0.1 mM disodium (Na₂EDTA), adjusted to a of 7.2–7.4. The serves as the primary lytic agent, maintains isotonicity and buffers the solution, and EDTA acts as a chelator to prevent clotting by binding divalent cations. To prepare ACK buffer, dissolve 8.023 g NH₄Cl, 1.001 g KHCO₃, and 0.029 g Na₂EDTA in approximately 800 mL of , then adjust the to 7.2–7.4 using 1 M HCl or 1 M NaOH as needed, and bring the final volume to 1 L with . The solution should be autoclaved for 15 minutes at 121°C or sterile-filtered through a 0.22 μm filter to ensure sterility, and it is recommended to store it at 4°C for up to 6 months, though using it fresh maximizes its hypotonic lytic efficacy. The mechanism of ACK buffer relies on a combination of hypotonic shock and ion-specific effects that selectively target erythrocytes. Ammonium chloride diffuses into red blood cells as NH₄⁺ and Cl⁻ ions via the anion exchanger (band 3 protein); inside the cell, NH₄Cl dissociates into NH₃ and HCl, with NH₃ diffusing out while H⁺ and Cl⁻ remain, lowering and causing to denature and precipitate. This acidification increases osmotic fragility, leading to efflux and subsequent colloid osmotic swelling and rupture of the erythrocyte membrane, while leukocytes remain intact due to their lower permeability to these ions and stronger osmotic resistance. The component helps sustain the and isotonicity (approximately 290 mOsm/L), preventing non-specific lysis. In and , ACK buffer is widely used to enrich populations from , buffy coats, or by lysing contaminating s, facilitating downstream analyses such as , cell sorting, or functional assays. For example, in preparation, cells are resuspended in ACK buffer and incubated at or 37°C for 3–5 minutes, followed by and to yield purified leukocytes with over 60% reduction in contamination. It is particularly valuable for processing EDTA-anticoagulated samples without affecting leukocyte viability or function. Safety considerations for handling ACK buffer primarily involve the irritant properties of , which can cause eye, skin, and respiratory upon exposure; it should be prepared and used in a well-ventilated area or , with appropriate such as gloves, , and lab coats. The buffer is non-hazardous overall for research use but should be disposed of according to local regulations for , and direct contact or should be avoided to prevent discomfort or .

Detergent-Free Lysis Buffers

Detergent-free lysis buffers provide an alternative approach to by relying on osmotic, enzymatic, or mechanical forces without the use of , thereby minimizing potential interference with downstream analyses that are sensitive to detergent residues. These buffers are particularly valuable in applications requiring the preservation of native protein-lipid interactions, such as studies or lipidomic profiling. Common types of detergent-free lysis buffers include hypotonic formulations and enzymatic mixtures. Hypotonic buffers exploit osmotic imbalance to swell and rupture cells, typically composed of low-ionic-strength solutions like 10 mM Tris-HCl at 7.5. Enzymatic lysis, often used for bacterial cells, incorporates to degrade the , combined with a simple buffer such as Tris-HCl without detergents. For instance, a representative composition for hypotonic or enzymatic lysis might include 20 mM ( 7.9), 10 mM KCl, 1.5 mM MgCl₂, and 1 mM DTT to maintain reducing conditions while avoiding . The primary advantages of detergent-free lysis buffers lie in their ability to prevent surfactant-induced artifacts. They avoid interference in lipid-based studies by preserving native membrane environments and reduce denaturation risks in enzyme assays, leading to higher retention of protein activity. Additionally, these buffers facilitate cleaner organelle isolation, such as nuclei or mitochondria, by not solubilizing membranes indiscriminately. These buffers are typically employed in conjunction with mechanical or osmotic methods to enhance lysis efficiency. Osmotic lysis occurs via hypotonic conditions, while mechanical approaches like Dounce homogenization, , or freeze-thaw cycles provide physical disruption without chemical additives. For bacterial cells, treatment is often followed by gentle homogenization to release contents. In the , commercial detergent-free kits have emerged to streamline these processes for mammalian cells. For example, GentleLys buffer from Cube Biotech offers a non-denaturing solution that lyses cultured insect and mammalian cells while solubilizing membranes without detergents, supporting applications in and structural studies.

Applications

Protein Extraction Protocols

Protein extraction protocols using lysis buffers typically begin with cell harvesting to prepare samples for . For suspension cells, cells are collected by at low speed (e.g., 500 × g for 5 minutes at 4 °C) to form a pellet, followed by washing with ice-cold () to remove media and debris. Adherent cells are washed directly in the culture dish with cold before detachment using or by scraping in the presence of lysis buffer. These steps minimize activation and maintain protein integrity throughout the process. Following harvesting, the cell pellet or scraped cells are resuspended in ice-cold lysis buffer at a of approximately 1:10 (v/v, buffer to cell volume) or 1 mL buffer per 10^7 cells, often using formulations like RIPA or for effective solubilization. The mixture is incubated on ice for 10–30 minutes with occasional vortexing or pipetting to ensure thorough without excessive mechanical stress. at 10,000–14,000 × g for 10–15 minutes at 4 °C separates the soluble protein-containing supernatant (lysate) from insoluble debris in the pellet, which is discarded. The supernatant is then aliquoted and stored at -80 °C if not used immediately. Post-lysis, protein quantification is essential for normalization in downstream applications. Common methods include the Bradford assay, which measures dye binding to proteins, or the BCA assay, which detects copper reduction by peptides, both allowing determination of total protein concentration in the lysate (typically 1–5 mg/mL for efficient extractions). Results guide sample loading, such as normalizing to 20–50 μg total protein per lane in . Common pitfalls in these protocols include over-lysis, which can activate endogenous leading to protein degradation if incubation exceeds 30 minutes without adequate inhibitors, and under-lysis from insufficient mixing or low concentrations, resulting in incomplete solubilization and low yields. To mitigate, buffers must include fresh inhibitors, and all steps should be performed at to prevent enzymatic activity. Lysates are often integrated with purification steps, such as dialysis against detergent-free buffer to remove lysis agents like SDS or , which can interfere with assays or ; this typically involves overnight dialysis at 4 °C using tubing with a 10–14 kDa cutoff. Subsequent steps may include or for further isolation.

Nucleic Acid Isolation

Lysis buffers adapted for DNA extraction typically incorporate chaotropic salts, such as guanidinium thiocyanate, to disrupt the nuclear membrane and release genomic DNA while deactivating nucleases that could degrade the nucleic acid. These agents denature proteins and facilitate the solubilization of cellular components without mechanical force, preserving DNA integrity. To ensure compatibility with downstream applications like PCR, formulations avoid sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), as residual SDS can inhibit polymerase activity even at low concentrations. For RNA isolation, lysis buffers emphasize rapid nuclease inhibition to prevent degradation, often including reducing agents like beta-mercaptoethanol, which irreversibly denatures RNases by disrupting their disulfide bonds. Commercial TRI buffers, such as TRIzol, combine phenol and guanidine thiocyanate in a monophasic solution to lyse cells, denature proteins, and partition RNA away from contaminants, as described in the seminal single-step method. This approach, originally detailed by Chomczynski and Sacchi, enables high-yield RNA recovery by exploiting the acid pH to separate RNA into the aqueous phase while DNA and proteins remain in the organic phase. Standard protocols for nucleic acid isolation begin with cell in a chaotropic buffer, followed by the addition of to digest residual proteins and enhance release, particularly from tough tissues. The lysate is then applied to silica columns under high-salt conditions, where bind selectively to the silica matrix; subsequent washes remove impurities, and in low-salt buffer yields purified material. inhibitors may be briefly added during to further protect against endogenous enzymes. Key challenges in these processes include preventing mechanical shearing of long DNA molecules, which can occur during pipetting or vortexing, necessitating gentle handling and low-speed to maintain high-molecular-weight fragments suitable for applications like long-read sequencing. For , rigorous control of RNase is essential, achieved through RNase-free , DEPC-treated , and immediate to minimize exposure. Typical yields from mammalian tissues range from 50-200 μg of per gram, with purity assessed by the A260/A280 ratio of 1.8-2.0 indicating minimal protein or phenol .

Specialized Uses in Cell Biology

In cell biology, lysis buffers play a critical role in organelle isolation by enabling gentle disruption of cellular structures while preserving integrity, often through hypotonic or isotonic formulations combined with density gradient centrifugation. For mitochondrial isolation, mild buffers containing high concentrations, such as 0.32 M , 1 mM EDTA-K+, and 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), are used to homogenize tissues or cells via Dounce homogenization, followed by discontinuous or gradients (e.g., 7.5% to 12% in 0.32 M buffer) to separate free mitochondria from synaptosomal fractions through at 73,000 × g. Similarly, for endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and mitochondrial separation, buffers like 270 mM D-mannitol, 10 mM Tris (pH 7.4), and 0.1 mM EDTA facilitate sonication-based , with subsequent discontinuous gradients (1.0 M to 2.0 M) banding organelles at 152,000 × g for 70 minutes to achieve high purity. These approaches, rooted in seminal protocols, minimize activity and osmotic shock to yield functional organelles for downstream assays like respiration or . In reporter gene assays, specialized lysis buffers enable non-disruptive release of intracellular enzymes without mechanical agitation, supporting quantitative measurement of transcriptional activity. Passive lysis buffers (PLB), typically proprietary formulations diluted to 1× from a 5× stock, are added directly to adherent or suspension cells in multi-well plates, allowing rapid lysis (10-15 seconds) and optimal recovery of activities from both firefly and Renilla luciferases in dual-reporter systems. This method's advantages include high reproducibility and compatibility with 96-well formats, avoiding harsh detergents that could quench , as demonstrated in and mammalian cells where PLB yields robust signal-to-noise ratios comparable to traditional chloroform-based permeabilization. High-throughput applications leverage buffers optimized for formats and to facilitate large-scale screening in . In workflows, buffers combining NP-40 detergent, protease inhibitors, RapiGest surfactant, and reducing agents like are dispensed into 384-well plates via robotic liquid handlers (e.g., Agilent Bravo systems), enabling of 100-10,000 cells per well at 4°C followed by 40°C incubation for denaturation, with full processing up to 384 samples in ~300 minutes and identifying ~4,000 proteins per sample with <26% CV reproducibility across cell types. These systems integrate multichannel pipetting for precise buffer addition, supporting phenotypic screens or engineering by minimizing manual intervention and scaling throughput 20- to 40-fold over manual methods. Live-cell lysis techniques employ selective permeabilization buffers to access specific cellular compartments without full cell disruption, preserving spatial organization for functional studies. , a -binding , is used at low concentrations (e.g., 20 μM) to selectively permeabilize the plasma membrane—rich in —while sparing internal organelles like the ER and mitochondria, allowing targeted access (e.g., ) to probe via protection assays in single cells or high-throughput formats. This approach enables real-time assessment of protein orientation and compartmental flux, with digitonin's specificity arising from its formation of 1:1 complexes with unesterified sterols, as validated in microscopy-based screens of diverse cell lines. Emerging applications integrate lysis buffers with microfluidic devices for single-cell analysis, enhancing resolution in heterogeneous populations post-2020. Droplet and microwell-based incorporate chemical lysis buffers like 1% directly into chips for on-demand cell disruption, enabling high-throughput RNA sequencing of individual cells by sealing lysis reactions post-encapsulation to protect nucleic acids. Recent advancements, such as integrated chips for isolation and lysis (2021), combine enzymatic buffers (e.g., low-pH ) with electrical fields for rapid, buffer-stabilized haplotyping, processing thousands of cells per run with minimal sample loss. These methods prioritize gentle, compartment-specific lysis to support multi-omics at single-cell resolution, as seen in scalable platforms for viral dynamics and .

References

  1. https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/protein-biology/protein-purification-isolation/cell-lysis-fractionation/cell-lysis-total-protein-extraction.html
  2. https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/feature/lysis-buffer.html
  3. https://www.bosterbio.com/blog/post/cell-lysis-the-first-and-crucial-step-in-molecular-biology
  4. https://opsdiagnostics.com/notes/lysisbuffers.html
  5. https://www.ptglab.com/support/western-blot-protocol/choosing-the-right-lysis-buffer/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6190294/
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007668792100118X
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6810642/
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6425773/
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/osmotic-shock
  11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542290/
  12. https://www.embl.org/groups/protein-expression-purification/services/protein-purification/choice-of-lysis-buffer/
  13. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.84.1.51
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2135635/
  15. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/duve-lecture.pdf
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2135638/
  17. https://doi.org/10.1038/227680a0
  18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(78)90372-5
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_Tris-HCl_much_more_popular_than_PBS_HEPES_for_cell_lysis_buffers
  20. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/EC/en/product/sigma/h0887
  21. https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Brevard_College/CHE_104%253A_Principles_of_Chemistry_II/07%253A_Acid_and_Base_Equilibria/7.24%253A_Calculating_pH_of_Buffer_Solutions-_Henderson-Hasselbalch_equation
  22. https://www.aatbio.com/resources/faq-frequently-asked-questions/What-is-the-role-of-NaCl-in-lysis-buffer
  23. https://www.aatbio.com/resources/faq-frequently-asked-questions/Why-is-EDTA-used-in-lysis-buffer
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9143545/
  25. https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/A1049201
  26. https://www.cellsignal.com/learn-and-support/troubleshooting/ip-troubleshooting-guide
  27. https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/protein-biology/protein-biology-learning-center/protein-biology-resource-library/pierce-protein-methods/detergents-cell-lysis-protein-extraction.html
  28. https://www.med.unc.edu/pharm/sondeklab/wp-content/uploads/sites/868/2018/10/detergents_calbiochem.pdf
  29. https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/applications-technologies/protein-solubilization?ID=LUSP3KFD4
  30. https://www.creative-proteomics.com/resource/detergents-for-cell-lysis-and-protein-extraction.htm
  31. https://lcms.cz/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/5991_7989_EN_594f7b20d8/5991-7989EN.pdf
  32. https://info.gbiosciences.com/blog/detergents-ionic-non-ionic-and-zwitterionic.-whats-the-difference
  33. https://www.abcam.com/en-us/knowledge-center/cell-biology/cell-lysis
  34. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/campaigns/detergents-reach-information
  35. https://www.bioprocessonline.com/doc/research-explores-alternative-to-eu-banned-triton-x-0001
  36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40898976/
  37. https://www.pharmaexcipients.com/news/generation-triton-x-100/
  38. https://www.labome.com/method/Detergents-Triton-X-100-Tween-20-and-More.html
  39. https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/protein-biology/protein-biology-learning-center/protein-biology-resource-library/pierce-protein-methods/protease-phosphatase-inhibitors.html
  40. https://www.med.upenn.edu/robertsonlab/assets/user-content/documents/protease-inhibitors.pdf
  41. https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/protein-biology/protein-purification-isolation/cell-lysis-fractionation/protease-phosphatase-inhibition.html
  42. https://www.thermofisher.com/ca/en/home/life-science/dna-rna-purification-analysis/rna-extraction/rna-extraction-products/rnase-inhibitors.html
  43. https://www.promega.ca/products/rna-analysis/rnase-inhibitor-rna-protection/rnasin-ribonuclease-inhibitor/
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/lysis-buffer
  45. https://www.neb.com/en-us/products/p0758-sodium-orthovanadate-activated-vanadate
  46. https://www.creative-proteomics.com/resource/protease-phosphatase-inhibitors-protein-preparation.htm
  47. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/20/12298
  48. https://info.gbiosciences.com/blog/role-of-additives-in-cell-lysis
  49. https://www.goldbio.com/blogs/articles/understanding-protease-inhibitors-and-protease-inhibitor-cocktails-deep-overview
  50. https://lifetechindia.com/pdf/PMSF16-S-50.pdf
  51. https://www.creative-proteomics.com/resource/comprehensive-guide-cell-lysis-protein-extraction.htm
  52. https://www.bioprocessintl.com/viral-clearance/triton-x-100-elimination-the-road-ahead-for-viral-inactivation
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9181984/
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005273622002395
  55. https://www.abcam.com/en-us/knowledge-center/cell-biology/ldh-assay-kit-guide-principles-and-application
  56. https://tools.thermofisher.com/content/sfs/brochures/TR0068-Protein-assay-compatibility.pdf
  57. https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/protein-biology/protein-biology-learning-center/protein-biology-resource-library/pierce-protein-methods/traditional-methods-cell-lysis.html
  58. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cbic.202100257
  59. https://www.goldbio.com/blogs/articles/why-is-my-lysis-buffer-not-working-how-to-resolve-9-lysis-buffer-issues-that-might-be-holding-you-back
  60. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/support/calculators-and-apps/buffer-calculator
  61. https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=11&article=6510&context=open_access_pubs&type=additional
  62. https://bitesizebio.com/42039/will-the-real-np-40-please-stand-up-chemical-nomenclature-woes/
  63. https://tools.thermofisher.com/content/sfs/manuals/FNN0021_Rev%200908.pdf
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4529808/
  65. https://www.bosterbio.com/ripa-lysis-buffer-ar0105-boster.html
  66. https://www.ptglab.com/news/blog/lysate-preparation-why-is-ripa-buffer-best-for-western-blot/
  67. https://toptipbio.com/ripa-lysis-buffer-recipe/
  68. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/deepweb/assets/sigmaaldrich/product/documents/350/775/r0278bul.pdf
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2600628/
  70. https://www.bio-rad-antibodies.com/blog/pull-down-your-target-protein-interactors-successfully.html
  71. http://www.protocol-online.org/biology-forums-2/posts/10856.html
  72. https://info.gbiosciences.com/blog/why-ripa-is-for-more-than-just-radioimmunoprecipitation-assays
  73. https://www.nature.com/articles/227680a0
  74. https://www.abcam.com/en-us/technical-resources/protocols/lysate-preparation-for-western-blot
  75. https://bitesizebio.com/44540/laemmli-buffer-what-is-it-for-anyway/
  76. https://www.bio-rad.com/webroot/web/pdf/lsr/literature/4006028_G.pdf
  77. https://www.antibodiesinc.com/blogs/news/1-sds-is-the-lysis-buffer-of-choice-for-most-western-blots
  78. https://www.novoprolabs.com/tools/buffer-preparations-and-recipes/ack-lysis-buffer
  79. https://www.aatbio.com/resources/buffer-preparations-and-recipes/ack-lysis-buffer
  80. https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/references/protocols/cell-and-tissue-analysis/protocols/red-blood-cell-lysis.html
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5035916/
  82. https://nextgen-protocols.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Whole-blood-hemolysis-with-isotonic-ammonium-chloride-solution.pdf
  83. https://www.researchgate.net/post/How-does-RBC-lysis-buffer-lyse-only-RBC-and-no-other-cells
  84. https://bioscience.lonza.com/lonza_bs/CH/en/Culture-Media-and-Reagents/p/000000000000265068/TheraPEAK-ACK-Lysing-Buffer-%25281x%2529
  85. https://bioscience.lonza.com/lonza_bs/US/en/p/PDFdocument?productCode=000000000000181463&reptype=MSDS&rvlid=US&iso=EN
  86. https://bioscience.lonza.com/lonza_bs/CH/en/p/PDFdocument?productCode=000000000000181463&reptype=MSDS&rvlid=99&iso=EN
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9406181/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4808063/
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/hypotonic
  90. https://www.neb.com/en-us/protocols/2023/03/27/nebexpress-t4-lysozyme-lysis-protocol-neb-p8115
  91. https://tuba-elk-3a7p.squarespace.com/s/Hypotonic-Lysis-Protocol.pdf
  92. https://www.goldbio.com/blogs/articles/why-lysozyme-and-zymolyase-are-important-in-cell-lysis-buffers
  93. https://cube-biotech.com/products/proteomics/cell-lysis-buffers/gentlelys-native-cell-lysis-buffer/18907
  94. https://www.bio-rad-antibodies.com/western-blot-protocol-cell-lysis-mammalian-cells.html
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11299557/
  96. https://www.promega.com/resources/guides/nucleic-acid-analysis/dna-purification/
  97. https://genome.cshlp.org/content/4/6/368.full.pdf
  98. https://www.qiagen.com/us/resources/faq/101
  99. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2440339/
  100. https://dna.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2019/02/Note-on-the-260_280-and-260_230-Ratios.pdf
  101. https://www.labome.com/method/RNA-Extraction.html
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8530414/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4607254/
  104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-679X(06)80001-4
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1214206/
  106. https://doi.org/10.1128/EC.4.9.1539-1549.2005
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9876622/
  108. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.1c00265
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3018527/
  110. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471143030.cb0507s49
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8507141/
  112. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi12010049
  113. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.202000060
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.