4.6 Article

Enhancing IgG purification from serum albumin containing feedstock with hydrophobic charge-induction chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1244, 期 -, 页码 116-122

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.04.073

关键词

Hydrophobic charge-induction chromatography; Immunoglobulin G; Serum albumin; Purification; pH control; Salt addition

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET)
  3. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrophobic charge-induction chromatography (HCIC) with 4-mercaptoethyl-pyridine (MEP) as the ligand is a novel technology for antibody purification, however, the separation selectivity still needs to be improved for the applications, especially for the impurity of serum albumin. In this study, with bovine serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) as the model, the purification of IgG from the serum albumin containing feedstock was developed with the commercial HCIC resin MEP HyperCel, focusing on the optimization of operation pH and salt addition. The adsorption isotherms of IgG and bovine serum albumin (BSA) were investigated at different pHs, and the binding and elution behaviors of two proteins in the column were also studied at varying pHs. In addition, the protein-ligand interactions were investigated with some additives in the buffer. It was found that the conditions of pH 6 with 0.1 M NaCl or pH 8 could be used to effectively remove BSA from the MEP resin without the influence on IgG adsorption. Two modes with control of loading or washing buffer were tested to enhance the purification of IgG from BSA containing feedstock, and the purity of IgG was improved to about 95% compared with 62.9% for the control. The results demonstrated that the control of loading pH or the addition of NaCl in the buffer might be an effective method to improve the purification of antibody with the HCIC process. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据