4.6 Article

Extraction and stability of bovine serum albumin (BSA) using cholinium-based Good's buffers ionic liquids

期刊

PROCESS BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 50, 期 7, 页码 1158-1166

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2015.03.020

关键词

Good's buffer ionic liquids; Aqueous two-phase extraction; Protein stability; Bovine serum albumin (BSA); Protein extraction

资金

  1. national funds through FCT/MEC [FCT UID/CTM/50011/2013]
  2. FEDER
  3. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT) [SFRH/BPD/78441/2011]
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [ERC-2013-StG-337753]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/78441/2011] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Good's buffers ionic liquids (GB-ILs), composed of cholinium-based cations and Good's buffers anions, display self-buffering characteristics in the biological pH range, and their polarity and hydrophobicity can be easily tuned by a proper manipulation of their ions chemical structures. In this work, the extraction ability for bovine serum albumin (BSA) of aqueous biphasic systems (ABS) formed by polypropylene glycol 400 (PPG 400) and several GB-ILs was evaluated. ABS formed by PPG 400 and cholinium chloride ([Ch]Cl), GBs, and sucrose were also investigated for comparison purposes. It is shown that BSA preferentially migrates for the GB-IL-rich phase, with extraction efficiencies of 100%, achieved in a single-step. Dynamic light scattering, and circular dichroism (CD) and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopies were employed to evaluate the effect of the investigated cholinium-based GB-ILs on the BSA stability, and compared with results obtained for the respective GBs precursors, [Ch]Cl and sucrose, a well-known protein stabilizer. Molecular docking studies were also carried out to investigate on the binding sites of GB-IL ions to BSA. The experimental results confirm that BSA has a higher stability in GB-ILs than in any of the other compounds investigated. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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