4.4 Article

Evaluation of Iminodiacetic Acid (IDA) as an Ionogenic Group for Adsorption of IgG1 Monoclonal Antibodies by Membrane Chromatography

期刊

APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 191, 期 2, 页码 810-823

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12010-019-03217-5

关键词

Adsorptive membrane chromatography; Monoclonal antibodies; Iminodiacetic acid (IDA); IgG purification

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo, FAPESP, Brazil [2004/09896-8]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico, CNPq, Brazil [141930/2006-3]
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Brazil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Iminodiacetic acid (IDA) is one of the chelating ligands most frequently employed in immobilized metal-ion affinity chromatography (IMAC) due to its ability to act as electron-pair donor, forming stable complexes with intermediate and borderline Lewis metal ions (electron acceptor). Thus, IDA can also be employed in ion exchange chromatography to purify positively charged proteins at neutral pH values. This study aimed to evaluate IDA as an ionogenic group (ion exchanger) immobilized on poly (ethylene vinyl alcohol) (PEVA) hollow fiber membranes for immunoglobulin G(1) (IgG(1)) monoclonal antibody (MAb) purification. IDA-PEVA membranes showed considerable promise for MAb purification, since IgG(1) was recovered in eluted fractions with traces of contaminants as confirmed by Western blotting and ELISA analysis. Quantification of IgG(1) showed that a purity of 94.2% was reached in the elution step. Breakthrough curve and batch adsorption experiments showed that the MAb dynamic binding capacity (DBC) of 3.10 mg g(-1) and the maximum adsorption capacity of 70 mg g(-1) were of the same order of magnitude as those found in the literature. The results obtained showed that the IDA-PEVA hollow fiber membrane could be a powerful adsorbent for integrating large-scale processes for purification of MAb from cell culture supernatant.

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

4.4
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