Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26201287›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of membrane biology2015

Protein Extraction by Means of Electroporation from E. coli with Preserved Viability.

Sasa Haberl Meglic, Tilen Marolt, Damijan Miklavcic

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of membrane biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Evaluation and Optimization of Protein Extraction FromFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Article
  6. Selective Release of Recombinant Periplasmic Protein FromFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sasa Haberl MeglicLaboratory of Biocybernetics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Trzaska 25, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Tilen Marolt
Damijan Miklavcic

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracting proteins by means of electroporation from different microorganisms is gaining on its importance, as electroporation is a quick, chemical-free, and cost-effective method. Since complete cell destruction (to obtain proteins) necessitates additional work, and cost of purifying the end-product is high, pulses have to be adjusted in order to prevent total disintegration. Namely, total disintegration of the cell releases bacterial membrane contaminants in the final sample. Therefore, our goal was to study different electric pulse parameters in order to extract as much proteins as possible from E. coli bacteria, while preserving bacterial viability. Our results show that by increasing electric field strength the concentration of extracted proteins increases and viability reduces. The correlation is reasonable, since high electric field destroys bacterial envelope, releasing all intracellular components into surrounding media. The strong correlation was also found with pulse duration. However, at longer pulses we obtained more proteins, while bacterial viability was not as much affected. Pulse number and/or pulse repetition frequency at our conditions have no or little effect on concentration of extracted proteins and/or bacterial viability. We can conclude that the most promising pulse protocol for protein extraction by means of electroporation based on our experience would be longer pulses with lower pulse amplitude assuring high protein yield and low effect on bacterial viability.

Indexed as

Microbial ViabilityCell MembraneCell SurvivalElectroporationEscherichia coliEscherichia coli ProteinsEscherichia coli Proteins

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.