After 4 h incubation in 5% blood, the majority of LytM185-316 was degraded while the degradation of lysostaphin was minimal. Both proteins were more stable in 5% serum, but again LytM185-316

was less stable than lysostaphin (Additional file 2). Lysostaphin and LytM185-316 recognize different cell wall components The affinity of lysostaphin and LytM was compared in a pulldown assay using various cell wall preparations that were increasingly enriched in peptidoglycan (Figure 3). Cell walls were used either crude (lane 2) or subjected to an extra washing step (lane 3), to SDS treatment, which should remove lipid components (lane 4), to TCA treatment, which is thought to remove teichoic acids (lane 5), or to trypsin treatment, which can be expected to remove protein components from cell walls (lane 6). The pulldown assay was also carried out with “purified” peptidoglycan, which was obtained from crude cell wall preparations Alectinib price by a combination of the SDS-, TCA- and trypsin treatments (lane 7), and with peptidoglycan from a commercial source (Fluka) (lane 8). Figure 3 Pulldown assay with S. aureus cell walls treated in various ways. Pulldown of (A) lysostaphin, (B) LytM185-316 and (C) LytM26-316 with S. aureus cell walls treated in various ways. (1) Input, (2) sonicated crude cell walls, (3) washed crude LY294002 datasheet cell walls, (4) SDS-treated cell walls, (5) TCA-treated

cell walls, (6) trypsinised cell walls, (7) purified peptidoglycans (8) commercially available peptidoglycans. The protein that was input (lane 1) or pulled down (lanes 2–8) was visualized by Western blotting with the anti-LytM antibody. In all cases, lysostaphin bound to the cell wall preparations albeit with different efficiency. Our results suggest that binding to crude cell walls was most effective, probably because of interactions between lysostaphin and non-peptidoglycan components of S. aureus cell

walls (Figure 3A). In contrast, LytM185-316 was not efficiently pulled down by crude cell wall preparations. However, when the cell walls were subjected to a washing step prior to the pulldown experiment, Clomifene LytM185-316 could be effectively pulled down. The effect of the washing step on the cell wall preparations is not clear. It may simply reduce clumping and make cell wall structures more accessible. Alternatively it may remove a putative inhibitory factor in the unwashed cell wall sonicate. Further purification of peptidoglycan had a little effect on the outcome of the pulldown experiments. Therefore, we conclude that LytM185-316 binds directly to cell walls and interacts primarily with peptidoglycans, rather than with other cell wall components (Figure 3B). Full length LytM (without predicted signal peptide, LytM26-316) was not efficiently pulled down by any of the peptidoglycan preparations.