ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2018
Parallel chromatography and in situ scattering to interrogate competing protein aggregation pathways.
Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Protein aggregation can follow different pathways, and these can result in different net aggregation rates and kinetic profiles. α-chymotypsinogen A (aCgn) was used as a model system to quantitatively and qualitatively assess an approach that combines ex situ size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) with in situ laser scattering (LS) to monitor aggregation vs. time. Aggregation was monitored for a series of temperatures and initial dimer (ID) levels for starting conditions that were primarily (> 97%) monomer, and under initial-rate conditions (limited to low monomer conversion-less than 20% monomer mass loss), as these conditions are of most to interest to many pharmaceutical and biotechnology applications. SEC results show that modest decreases of ID levels can greatly reduce monomer loss rates, but do not affect the effective activation energy for aggregation. The normalized aggregation rates determined from LS were typically ∼ 1 order of magnitude higher than the corresponding rates from SEC. Furthermore, LS signals vs. time became variable and highly nonlinear with decreasing ID level, temperature, and/or total protein concentration. Temperature-cycling LS experiments showed this corresponded to conditions where dimer/oligomer "seeding" was suppressed, and high levels of reversible oligomers ("prenuclei") were formed prior to "nucleation" and growth of stable aggregates. In those conditions, aggregation rates inferred from LS and SEC are greatly different, as the techniques monitor different stages of the aggregation process. Overall, the results illustrate an approach for interrogating non-native protein aggregation pathways, and potential pitfalls if one relies on a single method to monitor aggregation-this holds more generally than the particular methods here.
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.