TBST is more efficient in washing out non specific bound proteins and give a cleaner picture. I used both buffers and found TBST was better.
I agree with Varun. TBST works better in case of WB. It reduces background signal by washing out the non-specific antibodies more effectively.
I also agree with Varun...TBS is the better choice if you work with a PVDF membrane.. also you should be aware of the phosphate in the PBS which could interfere with the alkaline phosphatase!
On the following page they compare different Western Blot methods:
http://www.cellsignal.com/common/content/content.jsp?id=western-variation
From an experience TBS is better. You should also use TBS if you are studying protein phosphorylation as P in PBS may affect the results.
TBS is better however if you dont have TBS Pbs is the best buffer to be replaced with
We generally use TBS with tween20 for Western blotting and PBS with tritonX. If you're having trouble with high background you could try changing detergents?
Tris buffer pH can vary of one unit in within the temperatures used in Western (4 degrees in cold room 30 degrees in closed darkroom in the summer). The one pH unit change can affect weak antibody binding, especially when this change occurs at the washing steps, where the AB is diluted like a hell. If the AB has a low binding constant you can wash it. Phosphate buffers do not change the pH with the temperature significantly. The disadvantage of using PBST is that the microorganisms love growing there, thus make sure is freshly prepared or autoclaved
Check this:: http://www.cellsignal.com/common/content/content.jsp?id=western-variation
Scroll down to "Wash and dilution buffer".
- Badges
- Science method