4.4 Article

Comparison of Colorimetric Assays with Quantitative Amino Acid Analysis for Protein Quantification of Generalized Modules for Membrane Antigens (GMMA)

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 84-93

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12033-014-9804-7

关键词

Protein quantification; Generalized Modules for Membrane Antigens (GMMA); Outer Membrane Vesicles (OMV); Quantitative amino acid analysis; Colorimetric protein assay; Lowry assay; Bradford assay; Non-Interfering assay

资金

  1. European Union [261472]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetically induced outer membrane particles from Gram-negative bacteria, called Generalized Modules for Membrane Antigens (GMMA), are being investigated as vaccines. Rapid methods are required for estimating the protein content for in-process assays during production. Since GMMA are complex biological structures containing lipid and polysaccharide as well as protein, protein determinations are not necessarily straightforward. We compared protein quantification by Bradford, Lowry, and Non-Interfering assays using bovine serum albumin (BSA) as standard with quantitative amino acid (AA) analysis, the most accurate currently available method for protein quantification. The Lowry assay has the lowest inter- and intra-assay variation and gives the best linearity between protein amount and absorbance. In all three assays, the color yield (optical density per mass of protein) of GMMA was markedly different from that of BSA with a ratio of approximately 4 for the Bradford assay, and highly variable between different GMMA; and approximately 0.7 for the Lowry and Non-Interfering assays, highlighting the need for calibrating the standard used in the colorimetric assay against GMMA quantified by AA analysis. In terms of a combination of ease, reproducibility, and proportionality of protein measurement, and comparability between samples, the Lowry assay was superior to Bradford and Non-Interfering assays for GMMA quantification.

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

4.4
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