2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2016.08.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterization of methacrylate chromatographic monoliths bearing affinity ligands

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

4
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
24
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Large‐pore monoliths are more amenable to HTP applications due to their higher permeability and decreased possibility of clogging, therefore we used 2.1 μm average pore size diameter monoliths for preparation of CIMac‐@FIB 8‐well plates, as compared to 1.3 μm average pore size diameter monoliths which were used for CIMac‐@FIB columns. On the other hand, large pores decrease the surface area of the monolith resulting in approximately 1/3 decreased binding capacity for the antigen , so we used monoliths of larger volume (200 μL) for the CIMac‐@FIB 8‐well plate preparation, compared to the monoliths used for the column format (100 μL). @FIB was successfully bound in each well and the CIMac‐@FIB 8‐well plate was characterized for pure FIB binding capacity with the same reagents as with the CIMac‐@FIB columns.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Large‐pore monoliths are more amenable to HTP applications due to their higher permeability and decreased possibility of clogging, therefore we used 2.1 μm average pore size diameter monoliths for preparation of CIMac‐@FIB 8‐well plates, as compared to 1.3 μm average pore size diameter monoliths which were used for CIMac‐@FIB columns. On the other hand, large pores decrease the surface area of the monolith resulting in approximately 1/3 decreased binding capacity for the antigen , so we used monoliths of larger volume (200 μL) for the CIMac‐@FIB 8‐well plate preparation, compared to the monoliths used for the column format (100 μL). @FIB was successfully bound in each well and the CIMac‐@FIB 8‐well plate was characterized for pure FIB binding capacity with the same reagents as with the CIMac‐@FIB columns.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this work, carbonyldiimidazole (CDI)‐modified CIM columns were used for the immobilization of recombinant protein G (Reprokine, Rehovot, Israel) and recombinant protein L (Acro Biosystems, Beijing, China) following similar procedure, as described by Černigoj et al. for protein A immobilization . Measured dynamic binding capacity for protein G column was ≥9.0 and ˂15 mg/mL, with a recovery of ≥90%.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two types of immunoglobulin‐binding proteins that have been used in AMC are protein A and protein G . These are bacterial cell wall proteins that can bind to the F c regions of many types of immunoglobulins and antibodies, making them versatile agents for the purification, analysis, or biospecific adsorption of such targets .…”
Section: Binding Agents and Applications Of Amcmentioning
confidence: 99%