AP4M Antibody

Shipped with Ice Packs
In Stock

Description

AP4M Protein and the AP-4 Complex

The AP-4 complex consists of four subunits: AP4E, AP4B, AP4M (µ subunit), and AP4S. AP4M directly recognizes tyrosine-based sorting motifs on cargo proteins, facilitating their transport from the trans-Golgi network (TGN) to specific organelles . Key findings include:

  • Structure: AP4M binds to the cytosolic tail of vacuolar sorting receptors (e.g., VSR1 in plants) via a conserved tyrosine motif (e.g., YMPL in VSR1) .

  • Function: In plants, AP4M mediates vacuolar sorting of storage proteins like 12S globulins . In mammals, AP-4 regulates lysosomal trafficking and is implicated in hereditary spastic paraplegia (HSP) .

Research Applications of AP4M Antibody

AP4M antibodies are essential tools for detecting AP4M1 expression and studying its interactions. Notable applications include:

Western Blot Analysis

  • Anti-AP4B1 antibody (ab316002): Detects AP4B1 (a subunit partner of AP4M) at ~83 kDa in human brain, spleen, and cell lines (e.g., MCF7, HeLa) .

  • Anti-AP4M1 antibody (HPA066774): Validated for immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Western blot, with specificity confirmed via protein arrays and tissue staining .

Gene Therapy Studies

  • Intrathecal delivery of AAV9/AP4M1 in Ap4m1-knockout mice restored AP4M1 mRNA expression in the brain, demonstrating potential for treating HSP .

Role in Vacuolar Protein Sorting

ObservationAP4M Mutant PhenotypeWild-Type Phenotype
12S globulin localizationAccumulates in extracellular matrix Localized in protein storage vacuoles
VSR1 interactionDisrupted binding with Y606A mutation Strong AP4M-VSR1 binding

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Insights

  • AP4M dysfunction is linked to HSP, characterized by motor neuron degeneration. Gene therapy using AAV9/AP4M1 in mice showed sustained AP4M1 expression for 12 months post-injection .

  • AP4M antibodies aid in identifying AP-4 complex defects in cellular models, enabling mechanistic studies of trafficking disorders .

Future Directions

  • Therapeutic Development: AP4M antibodies could enable biomarker discovery for HSP or lysosomal storage diseases.

  • Mechanistic Studies: Further exploration of AP4M’s role in neuronal trafficking may reveal novel drug targets.

Product Specs

Buffer
Preservative: 0.03% Proclin 300
Constituents: 50% Glycerol, 0.01M PBS, pH 7.4
Form
Liquid
Lead Time
Made-to-order (14-16 weeks)
Synonyms
AP4M antibody; CLH antibody; At4g24550 antibody; F22K18.250AP-4 complex subunit mu antibody; Adaptor protein complex AP-4 subunit mu antibody; Adaptor protein-4 mu-adaptin antibody; Adaptor-related protein complex 4 subunit mu antibody; At-muC-Ad antibody; Mu4-adaptin antibody
Target Names
AP4M
Uniprot No.

Target Background

Function
AP4M Antibody targets a subunit of a novel type of clathrin- or non-clathrin-associated protein coat. This protein coat plays a crucial role in directing proteins from the trans-Golgi network (TGN) to the endosomal-lysosomal system.
Database Links

KEGG: ath:AT4G24550

STRING: 3702.AT4G24550.2

UniGene: At.32335

Protein Families
Adaptor complexes medium subunit family
Subcellular Location
Golgi apparatus, trans-Golgi network. Membrane, coated pit.

Q&A

What are the fundamental structural features of antibodies that determine their specificity?

Antibodies are complex protein structures with exquisite binding specificity essential for their function. The specificity of an antibody is primarily determined by the complementary determining regions (CDRs), particularly the third CDR (CDR3), which contains considerable variability . These regions form the antigen-binding site and determine the precise molecular interactions with epitopes. The variable domains of both heavy and light chains contribute to antigen recognition, while the constant regions mediate effector functions.

For research antibodies like those targeting AP4M, understanding the structural basis of specificity is critical when designing experiments to avoid cross-reactivity with similar targets. The amino acid composition at key positions within the CDRs directly influences binding affinity and specificity, with even single amino acid substitutions potentially altering binding profiles significantly .

How do researchers distinguish between different antibody binding modes?

Researchers use computational and experimental approaches to identify different binding modes of antibodies. Modern approaches involve high-throughput sequencing and computational analysis to disentangle these modes, even when associated with chemically similar ligands .

Binding modes can be characterized by:

  • Energy functions associated with particular interactions

  • Structural analysis of antibody-antigen complexes

  • Measurement of binding kinetics and thermodynamics

  • Competitive binding assays to identify overlapping epitopes

Computational models can identify distinct binding signatures in the antibody sequence that correlate with affinity for specific ligands. These models have successfully identified antibodies with custom specificity profiles, either with specific high affinity for particular target ligands or with cross-specificity for multiple target ligands .

What methodologies are recommended for initial validation of a newly acquired AP4M antibody?

Initial validation should employ multiple complementary techniques to confirm specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. Based on current best practices, researchers should:

  • Perform Western blotting or immunoprecipitation with positive and negative controls

  • Conduct immunofluorescence microscopy to verify subcellular localization patterns

  • Validate with knockout/knockdown systems when available

  • Compare results across multiple antibody lots and with alternative antibodies targeting the same protein

The binding affinity and immunoreactivity should be determined through Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays (ELISA) and Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR), which provide complementary information about antibody-antigen interactions . These techniques enable measurement of equilibrium dissociation constants and kinetic parameters that characterize binding quality and specificity.

How do traditional antibody generation methods compare with newer technologies for research applications?

Traditional methods for antibody generation include polyclonal production in rabbits and larger mammals, and hybridoma development in mice and rats. Both involve immunizing animals with a target antigen and monitoring serum antibody titers . While these methods remain widely used, newer approaches offer significant advantages:

MethodAdvantagesLimitationsBest For
PolyclonalMultiple epitope recognition, Robust signal, Simple productionBatch-to-batch variability, Limited reproducibilityInitial screening, Applications not requiring high specificity
HybridomaRenewable source, Consistent propertiesTime-consuming, Limited species diversityLong-term projects requiring consistent antibody supply
Phage DisplayNo animal immunization, Selection against toxic antigensTechnical complexity, May require optimizationDifficult targets, Humanized antibodies
Single B-cellRapid isolation, Natural pairing of heavy/light chainsResource-intensiveDiscovery of rare antibody specificities
AI-driven designCustom specificity profiles, Reduced experimental biasRequires extensive training dataEngineering antibodies with precise binding properties

Recent advances in AI technology for antibody discovery, like the project at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, aim to address traditional bottlenecks in the antibody discovery process, making it more democratized and efficient . These approaches can potentially identify therapeutic antibodies against targets where traditional methods have failed.

What factors should be considered when selecting a method for generating research-grade AP4M antibodies?

When selecting a method for generating AP4M antibodies for research, several key factors should be evaluated:

  • Target characteristics: Accessibility of epitopes, conservation across species, similarity to other proteins

  • Research objectives: Required specificity, intended applications, duration of the research project

  • Technical resources: Available equipment, expertise, and collaborations

  • Time constraints: Urgency of antibody need versus development timeline

  • Budget considerations: Cost-effectiveness for the specific research program

For highly conserved targets like elements of the AP4 complex, researchers should consider methods that allow for stringent selection against cross-reactivity with homologous proteins. Phage display methods combined with computational approaches offer advantages in discriminating between structurally similar epitopes . This is particularly relevant when targeting specific subunits of multi-protein complexes.

How is AI technology transforming antibody discovery, and what implications does this have for AP4M antibody research?

AI technology is revolutionizing antibody discovery by addressing traditional bottlenecks and enabling more precise control over antibody properties. The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) has funded projects aimed at using artificial intelligence technologies to generate antibody therapies against any antigen target of interest .

Key advances include:

  • Building massive antibody-antigen atlases to understand binding patterns

  • Developing AI-based algorithms to engineer antigen-specific antibodies

  • Applying these technologies to identify and develop potential therapeutic antibodies

For AP4M antibody research, AI approaches can potentially:

  • Predict optimal epitopes unique to AP4M despite structural similarities with other adaptor protein complexes

  • Design antibodies with precise specificity profiles that minimize cross-reactivity

  • Reduce development time and costs compared to traditional methods

  • Enable customization of binding properties for specific research applications

As noted by Dr. Ivelin Georgiev, "Monoclonal antibody discovery has the potential to impact a lot of different diseases where currently there are no therapeutics," and AI approaches can make this process "more democratized" and efficient .

What analytical techniques are most informative for characterizing AP4M antibody specificity and function?

Comprehensive characterization of antibody specificity and function requires multiple complementary analytical techniques. Based on current practices in the field, researchers should consider:

For specificity assessment:

  • Ion-exchange chromatography (IEX) for characterization of charge variants, which is considered a standard mode for assessing this important quality parameter

  • Capillary electrophoresis (CE) techniques including capillary gel electrophoresis (CGE), capillary isoelectric focusing (cIEF), and capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE) for analyzing heterogeneity based on charge and size

  • Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) for determining epitope specificity, binding kinetics, and active concentration required for binding

For structural characterization:

  • Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography (RPLC) for evaluating protein variations arising from chemical reactions or post-translational modifications

  • 1D and 2D Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) to obtain highly specific High Ordered Structures (HOS) at atomic resolution level

  • Chromatographic analysis of subdomains following reduction and enzymatic cleavage to assess specific modifications

For functional assessment:

  • Cell-based assays measuring downstream signaling or cellular responses

  • Competition assays to confirm epitope specificity

  • In vitro binding studies with purified target proteins

How can researchers differentiate between active and inactive forms of an AP4M antibody?

Differentiating between active and inactive forms of an antibody requires assessment of both structural integrity and functional binding capacity:

  • Activity-based measurements:

    • Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) technology can measure binding to receptors and antigens, as well as determine the active concentration required for binding

    • ELISA assays can quantify binding activity when standardized against reference materials

    • Cell-based functional assays can verify biological activity in relevant systems

  • Structural integrity assessment:

    • Chromatographic techniques can identify structural changes that might affect function

    • Thermal stability analysis can detect changes in folding and stability

    • Mass spectrometry can identify modifications that might compromise activity

  • Comparative analysis:

    • Side-by-side testing with reference standards or previous lots

    • Dose-response curves to identify shifts in potency

    • Analysis of binding kinetics to detect changes in association or dissociation rates

What are the recommended approaches for detecting and quantifying post-translational modifications in AP4M antibodies?

Post-translational modifications (PTMs) can significantly alter antibody properties and must be carefully characterized. Current analytical approaches include:

  • Reversed-Phase LC-MS (RPLC-MS) methodology:

    • This approach can separate antibody subdomains (light and heavy chains, Fab and Fc) with numerous specific alterations

    • Can detect modifications including pyroglutamic acid formation, isomerization, deamidation, and oxidation

    • Enables both qualitative and quantitative assessment of antibody heterogeneity

  • Capillary electrophoresis:

    • Particularly effective for charge-based heterogeneity analysis

    • Can detect subtle changes in charge distribution resulting from PTMs

    • Provides high-resolution separation of closely related variants

  • Ion exchange chromatography:

    • Standard approach for characterizing charge variants

    • Critical for assessing stability and process consistency

    • Can separate variants with subtle differences in surface charge

  • 2D Nuclear Magnetic Resonance:

    • Provides molecular fingerprints at atomic resolution

    • Can detect structural changes resulting from modifications

    • Offers detailed conformational information

For comprehensive analysis, researchers should employ multiple complementary techniques, as each has specific strengths for detecting different types of modifications.

How can researchers design AP4M antibodies with custom specificity profiles for challenging experimental conditions?

Designing antibodies with custom specificity profiles involves sophisticated computational and experimental approaches. Based on recent advances in the field:

  • Computational design strategies:

    • Biophysics-informed modeling combined with extensive selection experiments allows for customization of binding properties

    • Optimization of energy functions associated with each binding mode can generate either cross-specific antibodies (interacting with several distinct ligands) or highly specific antibodies (interacting with a single ligand while excluding others)

    • These approaches can be particularly valuable when very similar epitopes need to be discriminated, or when epitopes cannot be experimentally dissociated from other epitopes present in the selection

  • Experimental validation:

    • Phage display experiments using antibody libraries with systematic variation in CDR3 positions

    • High-throughput sequencing to analyze binding profiles

    • Iterative refinement based on experimental feedback

  • Application strategies:

    • For detecting specific isoforms of AP4M, design antibodies targeting unique sequences

    • For distinguishing between phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated forms, optimize binding energy differences between these states

    • For applications requiring detection across species, target conserved epitopes while excluding similar sequences in related proteins

This combined computational and experimental approach has been successfully demonstrated for creating antibodies with both specific and cross-specific binding properties and for mitigating experimental artifacts and biases in selection experiments .

What strategies are most effective for troubleshooting cross-reactivity issues with AP4M antibodies?

When facing cross-reactivity issues with AP4M antibodies, researchers should implement a systematic troubleshooting approach:

  • Epitope mapping and analysis:

    • Identify the specific binding region on AP4M

    • Compare this sequence with potentially cross-reactive proteins

    • Perform competitive binding assays to confirm shared epitopes

  • Validation in multiple systems:

    • Test antibody specificity in knockout/knockdown systems

    • Perform immunoprecipitation followed by mass spectrometry to identify all bound proteins

    • Compare results across different experimental conditions and cell types

  • Absorption and blocking strategies:

    • Pre-absorb antibodies with purified cross-reactive proteins

    • Use alternative blocking agents to reduce non-specific binding

    • Optimize antibody concentration to maximize signal-to-noise ratio

  • Computational refinement:

    • Apply model-based approaches to identify antibody variants with improved specificity

    • Optimize antibody sequences based on energy functions that maximize binding to the target while minimizing interaction with cross-reactive proteins

When cross-reactivity persists despite these measures, researchers may need to generate new antibodies using more stringent selection methods or consider alternative detection approaches.

How can researchers optimize experimental conditions to maximize AP4M antibody performance in challenging samples?

Optimizing experimental conditions for challenging samples requires attention to multiple parameters:

  • Sample preparation optimization:

    • Modify fixation protocols to preserve epitope accessibility

    • Adjust extraction buffers to maintain protein conformation

    • Consider native versus denaturing conditions based on epitope location

  • Blocking and incubation conditions:

    • Test multiple blocking agents (BSA, milk, commercial blockers)

    • Optimize temperature and duration of antibody incubation

    • Adjust antibody concentration through titration experiments

  • Detection system enhancement:

    • Select signal amplification methods appropriate to sample type

    • Consider alternative detection systems (fluorescent, chemiluminescent, colorimetric)

    • Implement positive and negative controls specific to the sample type

  • Validation strategies:

    • Confirm results with orthogonal methods

    • Include spike-in controls to assess recovery

    • Perform dilution linearity tests to verify quantitative accuracy

For particularly challenging applications like detecting low-abundance targets or working with highly complex samples, consider advanced approaches such as:

  • Proximity ligation assays for enhanced specificity

  • Sequential immunoprecipitation steps to reduce background

  • Enrichment protocols to increase target concentration before analysis

What statistical approaches are recommended for analyzing binding affinity data from AP4M antibody experiments?

Analyzing binding affinity data requires rigorous statistical approaches to ensure reliable interpretation:

  • Model selection and fitting:

    • Choose appropriate binding models (1:1, bivalent, heterogeneous ligand)

    • Use global fitting approaches when analyzing multiple datasets

    • Evaluate goodness-of-fit using residual analysis and chi-square values

  • Replicate design and analysis:

    • Perform technical and biological replicates

    • Calculate confidence intervals for key parameters (ka, kd, KD)

    • Use analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess significant differences between conditions

  • Quality control metrics:

    • Implement exclusion criteria based on quality parameters

    • Assess the dynamic range and limits of detection

    • Verify that data points span an appropriate concentration range

  • Comparative data visualization:

    • Present comparative data in tables rather than lists

    • Generate sensorgrams or binding curves showing raw data and fitted curves

    • Include residual plots to demonstrate quality of fit

When analyzing Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) data, researchers should report both kinetic parameters (association and dissociation rates) and equilibrium constants to provide a complete picture of binding characteristics. Similarly, ELISA data should include calibration curves, limits of detection, and measures of precision .

How should researchers approach contradictory results when comparing different analytical techniques for AP4M antibody characterization?

When faced with contradictory results across different analytical techniques, researchers should:

  • Examine methodological differences:

    • Evaluate whether techniques measure fundamentally different properties

    • Consider whether sample preparation affects the target epitope differently

    • Assess whether analytical conditions might alter antibody or antigen properties

  • Implement systematic troubleshooting:

    • Test reference standards across all platforms to validate each method

    • Perform spike-in recovery experiments to assess matrix effects

    • Evaluate potential interfering substances specific to each technique

  • Apply orthogonal approaches:

    • Use complementary techniques that operate on different principles

    • Consider techniques with varying sensitivity and specificity profiles

    • Verify results with functional assays that assess biological activity

  • Integrate and synthesize data:

    • Develop a comprehensive model that accounts for discrepancies

    • Weight evidence based on methodological strength and relevance

    • Consider whether conflicting results reveal meaningful biological complexity

It's worth noting that techniques like ELISA and SPR are considered complementary and typically provide consistent results for characterizing monoclonal antibodies . When discrepancies arise, they often reveal important insights about antibody structure-function relationships or highlight technical limitations that require further investigation.

What are the best practices for interpreting post-translational modifications in AP4M antibodies and their impact on experimental outcomes?

Interpreting the impact of post-translational modifications (PTMs) on antibody function requires a systematic approach:

  • Comprehensive characterization:

    • Map the specific modifications and their locations within the antibody structure

    • Quantify the proportion of antibody molecules carrying each modification

    • Correlate modifications with changes in physical properties using techniques like ion-exchange chromatography, which is considered standard for characterizing charge variants

  • Functional correlation:

    • Assess whether modifications occur within or near the antigen-binding site

    • Measure binding kinetics of modified versus unmodified antibody populations

    • Determine if modifications affect Fc-mediated functions if relevant to the application

  • Stability assessment:

    • Monitor changes in modification patterns during storage and experimental conditions

    • Evaluate thermal stability of modified antibody populations

    • Assess aggregation propensity as a function of modification status

  • Experimental design considerations:

    • Include controls that account for potential effects of identified modifications

    • Consider whether sample processing might introduce or alter modifications

    • Develop strategies to minimize impact of problematic modifications

Researchers should be particularly attentive to common modifications that can significantly affect antibody function, including deamidation, oxidation, isomerization, and glycosylation patterns. Advanced analytical techniques such as Reversed-Phase LC-MS methodology can separate antibody subdomains with specific alterations including pyroglutamic acid formation, isomerization, deamidation, and oxidation, enabling both qualitative and quantitative assessment of antibody heterogeneity .

Quick Inquiry

Personal Email Detected
Please use an institutional or corporate email address for inquiries. Personal email accounts ( such as Gmail, Yahoo, and Outlook) are not accepted. *
© Copyright 2025 TheBiotek. All Rights Reserved.