Salting-in characteristics of globular proteins.
ABSTRACT Protein solubility, and the formation of various solid phases, is of interest in both bioprocessing and the study of protein condensation diseases. Here we examine the the phase behavior of three proteins (chymosin B, β-lactoglobulin B, and pumpkin seed globulin) previously known to display salting-in behavior, and measure their solubility as a function of pH, ionic strength, and salt type. Although the phase behavior of the three proteins is quantitatively different, general trends emerge. Stable crystal nucleation does not occur within the salting-in region for the proteins examined, despite the crystal being observed as the most stable solid phase. Instead, two types of amorphous phases were found within the salting-in region; additionally, an analog to the instantaneous clouding curve was observed within the salting-in region for chymosin B. Also, protein solutions containing sulfate salts resulted in different crystal morphologies depending on whether Li(2)SO(4) or (NH(4))(2)SO(4) was used.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The anisotropy of shape and functionality of proteins complicates the prediction of protein–protein interactions. We examine the distribution of electrostatic and nonelectrostatic contributions to these interactions for two globular proteins, lysozyme and chymosin B, which differ in molecular weight by about a factor of 2. The interaction trends for these proteins are computed in terms of contributions to the osmotic second virial coefficient that are evaluated using atomistic models of the proteins. Our emphasis is on identifying the orientational configurations that contribute most strongly to the overall interactions due to high-complementarity interactions, and on calculating the effect of ionic strength on such interactions. The results emphasize the quantitative importance of several features of protein interactions, notably that despite differences in their frequency of occurrence, configurations differing appreciably in interaction energy can contribute meaningfully to overall interactions. However, relatively small effects due to charge anisotropy or specific hydration can affect the overall interaction significantly only if they contribute to strongly attractive configurations. The results emphasize the necessity of accounting for detailed anisotropy to capture actual experimental trends, and the sensitivity of even very detailed atomistic models to subtle solution contributions.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 01/2014; 10(2):835–845. · 5.31 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The ability to target and control intermolecular interactions is crucial in the development of several different technologies. Here we offer a tool to rationally design liquid media systems that can modulate specific intermolecular interactions. This has broad implications in deciphering the nature of intermolecular forces in complex solutions and offers insight into the forces that govern both specific and nonspecific binding in a given system. Nonspecific binding still continues to be a problem when dealing with analyte detection across a range of different detection technologies. Here, we exemplify the problem of nonspecific binding on model membrane systems and when dealing with low-abundance protein detection on commercially available SPR technology. A range of different soluble analytes that target specific sub-classes of intermolecular interactions have been tested and optimized to virtually eliminate nonspecific binding, while leaving specific interactions unperturbed. Thiocyanate ions are used to target nonpolar interactions and small analytes such as glycylglycylglycine are used to modulate the dielectric constant, which targets charge-charge and dipole interactions. We show that with rational design and careful modulation these reagents offer a step forward in dissecting the intermolecular forces that govern binding, alongside offering nonspecific binding elimination in detection systems.Langmuir 07/2014; 30(31). · 4.38 Impact Factor