ArticleJournal of inorganic biochemistry2026
Deciphering Cu(II) EPR in biological buffers: Implications for copper protein studies.
Article in Journal of inorganic biochemistry, 2026. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Copper proteins are essential for many biological processes, mediating electron transfer and redox catalysis in biochemistry and playing key roles in human health. Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy is a powerful tool to probe Cu(II) centers in these proteins, but its application can be complicated by spurious signals arising from adventitious Cu(II) binding to buffers or affinity tags. Here, we systematically examined Cu(II) EPR signals from common biological buffers (Tris, HEPES, MOPS) over pH 6.0-8.0, as well as from a His affinity tag. We show that Tris coordinates Cu(II) across this pH range, whereas HEPES binds Cu(II) weakly at near neutral pH and MOPS essentially does not chelate Cu(II) and rather precipitates Cu(II). These buffer-dependent Cu(II) complexes produce distinct EPR signatures that can interfere with spectral interpretation and spin quantifications. Using two case studies-a bacterial multicopper oxidase (MnxEFG) and Drosophila lysyl oxidase (DmLOX), we show how buffer choices and purification tags influence the observed Cu EPR spectra. In MnxEFG, switching from HEPES to Tris eliminated adventitiously bound Cu(II) and revealed the true copper content and sites. In DmLOX, we identified an EPR signature of Cu(II) bound to the protein's His-tag, which could be minimized by appropriate refolding conditions. These findings highlight the importance of controlling solution chemistry during sample preparation and suggest practical strategies to obtain cleaner, more interpretable spectra. Overall, this work provides guidance for minimizing nonspecific Cu(II) binding and improving the reliability of EPR analysis in studies of copper proteins in biological systems.
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.