4.7 Article

Production and characterization of a monoclonal antibody against the beta-adrenergic agonist ractopamine

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 48, 期 9, 页码 4020-4026

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf000528n

关键词

beta-agonist; ELISA; monoclonal antibody; ractopamine; feed additive; residue

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A monoclonal antibody was generated toward the beta-adrenergic agonist ractopamine hydrochloride {(1R*,3R*), (1R*,3S*)-4-hydroxy-alpha-[[[3-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-methylpropyl]amino]methyl]benzene-methanol hydrochloride}. Ractopamine-glutarate-keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) was used as the antigen for antibody generation in mice. Clone 5G10, secreted antibody with isotype IgG1 kappa, was used for the development of an immunoassay. The selected antibody was specific for racemic ractopamine with an IC(50) of 2.69 +/- 0.36 ng/mL (n = 15). Antibody binding toward ractopamine was stereoselective with (1R,3R)-ractopamine having an IC(50) of 0.55 +/- 0.09 ng/mL (n = 3). IC(50) values for the (1S,3R)-, (1S,3S)-, and (1R,3S)-ractopamine stereoisomers were 2.00 +/- 0.37, 140 +/- 23, and 291 +/- 32 ng/mL (n = 3), respectively. Phenethanolamine beta-agonists showed low cross-reactivity. Studies using a series of ractopamine metabolites and ractopamine analogues demonstrated structural requirements for the antibody binding. A free phenolic group on the N-butylphenol moiety was required for high-affinity binding because methoxylated analogues and metabolites glucuronidated at this phenol generally had IC(50) values greater than 200 ng/mL. Ractopamine analogues methoxylated or glucuronidated at the ethanolamine phenol had IC(50) values of 0.7-2.6 ng/mL. Lack of a benzylic hydroxyl group was of less importance to antibody binding than was the correct stereochemical orientation (3R) of ractopamine's N-phenylalkyl group. In conclusion, a highly specific monoclonal antibody to ractopamine hydrochloride was developed that could be of potential utility in screening assays.

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

4.7
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