3.8 Article

Periplasmic expression of human growth hormone via plasmid vectors containing the lambda P-L promoter: use of HPLC for product quantification

期刊

PROTEIN ENGINEERING
卷 16, 期 12, 页码 1131-1138

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/protein/gzg114

关键词

Escherichia coli periplasm; human growth hormone; lambda P-L promoter; recombinant DNA; signal peptide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The influence of different factors acting on Escherichia coli periplasmic expression of recombinant human growth hormone (hGH) in shake flask cultures has been investigated. Bacterial vectors containing the phage lambdaP(L) promoter, which is temperature activated, were utilized. Four different signal peptides were compared: DsbA, npr, STII and one derived from the natural hGH signal peptide, this last used as a reference. Other factors such as medium composition, optimized induction and expression conditions, and different bacterial strains were also studied. The determination of hGH, carried out directly in osmotic shock fluids, was based on an isocratic reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography method, which allows direct, rapid evaluation of the quality and quantity of hGH being secreted in the bacterial periplasmic space immediately after or even during fermentation. The level of hGH production increased 2.5-fold compared with the reference vector, reaching a level of 3.9 +/- 0.63 mug/ml/A(600) (n = 6; coefficient of variation = 16.2%). The expression level was affected by the signal peptide and by the induction conditions, being more effective when activation started in the early logarithmic phase which, however, exhibited remarkably different optical density ( OD) according to medium composition. Our results thus indicate that 6 h activation at 40 - 42 degreesC, starting with an OD (A(600)) of similar to 3 in a very rich medium, were conditions capable of providing the maximum secretion level for a vector utilizing the DsbA signal sequence and E. coli W3110 or RB791 as host cells.

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

3.8
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