Protein separation using non-ionic and cationic surfactant precipitation

BACKGROUND: The predominant use of anionic surfactants to precipitate high isoelectric point (pI) proteins has increased in recent years, simplifying downstream separations. However, few researchers have tested cationic and non-ionic surfactants, whose properties are more desirable. This paper exami...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ward, K., Cheng, S. I., Stuckey, D. C.
Format: Article
Published: John Wiley and Sons Ltd 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/72033/
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84963657044&doi=10.1002%2fjctb.4942&partnerID=40&md5=5b43cae6590efd40510f91503f5e8420
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
id my.utm.72033
record_format eprints
spelling my.utm.720332017-11-16T05:23:26Z http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/72033/ Protein separation using non-ionic and cationic surfactant precipitation Ward, K. Cheng, S. I. Stuckey, D. C. TP Chemical technology BACKGROUND: The predominant use of anionic surfactants to precipitate high isoelectric point (pI) proteins has increased in recent years, simplifying downstream separations. However, few researchers have tested cationic and non-ionic surfactants, whose properties are more desirable. This paper examines the effect of these surfactants on the precipitation efficiency of lysozyme, trypsin inhibitor and bovine serum albumin (BSA). RESULTS: Precipitation of BSA and trypsin inhibitor using the cationics, trioctylmethylammonium chloride (TOMAC) and dimethyl dioctadecyl ammonium chloride (DODMAC) was evaluated, with TOMAC being superior. More than 90% of BSA was precipitated using TOMAC at pH 9.0 with a molar ratio of surfactant/protein (R) of 100:1, while 88% was precipitated using DODMAC. However, for trypsin inhibitor, only 58% was precipitated at an R of 61:1 and pH 6.2 using TOMAC. Protein precipitate recovery using the anionic surfactant sodium bis-[2-ethylhexyl] sulfosuccinate (AOT) was effective only with trypsin inhibitor, with 100% of the protein being recovered. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the potential of cationics to precipitate low pI proteins, and recover them using the counterionic surfactant AOT, with 100% recovery of trypsin inhibitor. However, non-ionic surfactants were ineffective. The method not only separates, but also preserves protein structure; hence cationic surfactants for low pI protein separation are promising. John Wiley and Sons Ltd 2016 Article PeerReviewed Ward, K. and Cheng, S. I. and Stuckey, D. C. (2016) Protein separation using non-ionic and cationic surfactant precipitation. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 91 (10). pp. 2563-2567. ISSN 0268-2575 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84963657044&doi=10.1002%2fjctb.4942&partnerID=40&md5=5b43cae6590efd40510f91503f5e8420
institution Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
building UTM Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
content_source UTM Institutional Repository
url_provider http://eprints.utm.my/
topic TP Chemical technology
spellingShingle TP Chemical technology
Ward, K.
Cheng, S. I.
Stuckey, D. C.
Protein separation using non-ionic and cationic surfactant precipitation
description BACKGROUND: The predominant use of anionic surfactants to precipitate high isoelectric point (pI) proteins has increased in recent years, simplifying downstream separations. However, few researchers have tested cationic and non-ionic surfactants, whose properties are more desirable. This paper examines the effect of these surfactants on the precipitation efficiency of lysozyme, trypsin inhibitor and bovine serum albumin (BSA). RESULTS: Precipitation of BSA and trypsin inhibitor using the cationics, trioctylmethylammonium chloride (TOMAC) and dimethyl dioctadecyl ammonium chloride (DODMAC) was evaluated, with TOMAC being superior. More than 90% of BSA was precipitated using TOMAC at pH 9.0 with a molar ratio of surfactant/protein (R) of 100:1, while 88% was precipitated using DODMAC. However, for trypsin inhibitor, only 58% was precipitated at an R of 61:1 and pH 6.2 using TOMAC. Protein precipitate recovery using the anionic surfactant sodium bis-[2-ethylhexyl] sulfosuccinate (AOT) was effective only with trypsin inhibitor, with 100% of the protein being recovered. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the potential of cationics to precipitate low pI proteins, and recover them using the counterionic surfactant AOT, with 100% recovery of trypsin inhibitor. However, non-ionic surfactants were ineffective. The method not only separates, but also preserves protein structure; hence cationic surfactants for low pI protein separation are promising.
format Article
author Ward, K.
Cheng, S. I.
Stuckey, D. C.
author_facet Ward, K.
Cheng, S. I.
Stuckey, D. C.
author_sort Ward, K.
title Protein separation using non-ionic and cationic surfactant precipitation
title_short Protein separation using non-ionic and cationic surfactant precipitation
title_full Protein separation using non-ionic and cationic surfactant precipitation
title_fullStr Protein separation using non-ionic and cationic surfactant precipitation
title_full_unstemmed Protein separation using non-ionic and cationic surfactant precipitation
title_sort protein separation using non-ionic and cationic surfactant precipitation
publisher John Wiley and Sons Ltd
publishDate 2016
url http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/72033/
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84963657044&doi=10.1002%2fjctb.4942&partnerID=40&md5=5b43cae6590efd40510f91503f5e8420
_version_ 1643656341407924224