Three parameters could be measured to better identify these protein complexes: first, the kinetic binding constants between the protein and DNA, second, binding to specific antibodies, and third, the molecular weight of the complex, which is related to the increase in surface plasmon resonance signal. Each of these three factors should be dependent upon the identity of the protein complex. The measurement of all three, along with the knowledge that the protein binds to a specific DNA sequence should allow one to uniquely identify the protein complex. The three channel Spreeta evaluation kit consists of several Spreeta sensor modules, a three channel flow cell, an electronic controller with comprehensive software, and an integrated flow block. The sensor modules are made by Sensata; other components are made by Nomadics. The flow block was used to connect the Spreeta sensor module with the control box and to secure the flow cell to the surface of the sensor. The flow cell provides three independent flow channels. Each channel is approximately 4.5 mm long and 0.1 mm wide. The flow cell confines solution to the narrow channels, which correspond to the sensor surface. The sensor data was analyzed to determine relative protein binding by measuring the difference in steady-state refractive index level before and after the addition of nuclear protein. Each experiment was repeated three times to provide error estimates. To rule out that MreB is recruited to the cell membrane by endogenous cytoskeletal elements, we performed immunofluorescence microscopy to visualize MreB in parallel with actin or tubulin. Although both proteins accumulated along the membrane, individual assemblies were not strictly the same, but mostly dissimilar. YFP-MreB did not generally colocalize with tubulin, neither along the membrane, nor within the cytosol, showing that it is not recruited to the membrane by actin or tubulin. Intubation is an alternative method that allows for very efficient delivery of materials into the lungs, but the procedure is technically much more demanding and more timeconsuming than intranasal administration. In addition, intubation includes a much higher risk of injury to the animal that could compromise the study. Aerosol administration via a nebulizerbased device also offers very efficient delivery of materials to the lungs with little risk of injury to the animal; however, this method is technically demanding and requires expensive equipment that is not widely available. Moreover, the use of aerosol generators for studies involving dangerous pathogens involves safety issues for research personnel that do not exist when using the intranasal delivery method. In light of these factors, it seems certain that intranasal administration will continue to be the most popular method for pneumonic instillation for the foreseeable future.