4.5 Article

Apolipoprotein A-IMilano anion exchange chromatography: Self association and adsorption equilibrium

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 5, 期 10, 页码 1028-1039

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/biot.201000221

关键词

Downstream processing; Ion exchange equilibrium; Isocratic elution; Protein adsorption; Self-association

资金

  1. Pfizer, Inc.
  2. US DOD
  3. NSF [CTS-0729857]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The self-associative properties of apolipoprotein A-I-Milano. (apoA-I-M) were investigated in relationship to its anion exchange behavior on Q-Sepharose-HP with and without the addition of urea as a denaturant. Self-association was dependent on protein and urea concentration and both influenced interactions of the protein with the chromatographic surface. In the absence of urea, apoA-I-M was highly associated and existed primarily as a mixture of homodimer, tetramer and hexamer forms. Under these conditions, since the binding strength was greater for the oligomer forms, broad, asymmetrical peaks were obtained in both isocratic and gradient elution. Adding urea depressed self-association and caused unfolding. This resulted in sharper peaks but also decreased the binding strength. Thus, under these conditions chromatographic elution occurred at lower salt concentrations. The adsorption isotherms obtained at high protein loadings were also influenced by self-association and by the varying binding strength of the differently associated and unfolded forms. The isotherms were thus dependent on protein, urea, and salt concentration. Maximum binding capacity was obtained in the absence of urea, where adsorption of oligomers was shown to be dominant. Adding urea reduced the apparent binding capacity and weakened the apparent binding strength. A steric mass action model accounting for competitive binding of the multiple associated forms was used to successfully describe the equilibrium binding behavior using parameters determined from isocratic elution and isotherm experiments.

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

4.5
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