ReviewJournal of chromatography. A2011
Protein adsorption and transport in polymer-functionalized ion-exchangers.
Review in Journal of chromatography. A, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 122 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developments in Ion Exchange Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry for the Characterization of Intact Proteins and Proteoforms.Journal of separation science · 2025Review
- Modeling Chromatography Binding through Molecular Dynamics Simulations with Resin Fragments.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2024Article
- Article
- Ionic strength-dependent changes in tentacular ion exchangers with variable ligand density. I. Structural properties.Journal of chromatography. A · 2016Article
- Determinants of protein elution rates from preparative ion-exchange adsorbents.Journal of chromatography. A · 2016Article
- Downstream Processing Technologies/Capturing and Final Purification : Opportunities for Innovation, Change, and Improvement. A Review of Downstream Processing Developments in Protein Purification.Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A wide variety of stationary phases is available for use in preparative chromatography of proteins, covering different base matrices, pore structures and modes of chromatography. There has recently been significant growth in the number of such materials in which the base matrix is derivatized to add a covalently attached or grafted polymer layer or, in some cases, a hydrogel that fills the pore space. This review summarizes the main structural and functional features of ion exchangers of this kind, which represent the largest class of such materials. Although the adsorption and transport properties may generally be used operationally and modeled phenomenologically using the same methods as are used for proteins in conventional media, there are noteworthy mechanistic differences in protein behavior in these adsorbents. A fundamental difference in protein retention is that it may be portrayed as partitioning into a three-dimensional polymer phase rather than adsorption at an extended two-dimensional surface, as applies in more conventional media. Beyond this partitioning behavior, however, the polymer-functionalized media often display rapid intraparticle transport that, while qualitatively comparable to that in conventional media, is sufficiently rapid quantitatively under certain conditions that it can lead to clear benefits in key measures of performance such as the dynamic binding capacity. Although possible mechanistic bases for the retention and transport properties are discussed, appreciable areas of uncertainty make detailed mechanistic modeling very challenging, and more detailed experimental characterization is likely to be more productive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.