4.2 Article

Cooperative effects of urea and L-arginine on protein refolding

期刊

PROTEIN EXPRESSION AND PURIFICATION
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 82-90

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.pep.2009.02.004

关键词

Refolding kinetics; Urea; L-Arginine; Guanidinium chloride; rhG-CSF

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [20536050, 20706052, 20636010]
  2. National Basic Research Development Program of China [2007CB714305]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of low concentrations of urea, guanidinium chloride or arginine has been reported in the literature to increase protein refolding and yield of active proteins by suppressing aggregate formation. However, no studies have yet examined whether these substances can exert synergistic or cooperative effects when used in combination. In this work, a comparative study was carried out on refolding of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) in the presence of different concentrations of urea, guanidinium chloride or arginine. All three folding aids could inhibit the formation of insoluble aggregates of rhG-CSF but with different efficacies. A low concentration of guanidinium chloride was found to denature protein, so that rhG-CSF was not fully or correctly folded even if concentration was reduced to I M. Low concentration of urea (2 M) or arginine (0.5 M) did not cause rhG-CSF denaturation, but urea was unable to suppress the formation of soluble oligomers, which persisted at a level of about 30% in refolded soluble rhG-CSF. Arginine, in contrast, could inhibit formation of all soluble oligomers. Based on these phenomena, we tested rhG-CSF folding in a mixture of 2 M urea and 0.5 M arginine. Kinetic analysis indicated that urea aided in suppressing insoluble precipitates, while arginine prevented formation of soluble oligomers produced by hydrophobic interaction. With this combination system, the refolding yield of rhG-CSF could be increased 2-fold. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.2
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