2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2003.07.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Expression and purification of a recombinant buforin derivative from Escherichia coli

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, in the past, traditional fusion systems have given variable results of expression and have faced major problems attributed to either the inefficient cleavage of the fusion protein or cleavage within the target protein, both of which compound the difficulties of purification. Expression of the recombinant buforin IIb was achieved by Pyo et al (2004) using PurF fusion technology. Hydroxylamine was also used for chemical cleavage.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in the past, traditional fusion systems have given variable results of expression and have faced major problems attributed to either the inefficient cleavage of the fusion protein or cleavage within the target protein, both of which compound the difficulties of purification. Expression of the recombinant buforin IIb was achieved by Pyo et al (2004) using PurF fusion technology. Hydroxylamine was also used for chemical cleavage.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many different kinds of antimicrobial peptides have been identified in recent years from various organisms, including amphibians, mammals, plants, invertebrates, and prokaryotes (3,18,22,35). To make AMPs more economically viable, researchers have sought to mass-produce AMPs using recombinant means such as insect/baculovirus (1)-, yeast (30)-, and Escherichia coli (6,12,16,19,28,29,39)-based systems. However, some of these previous studies have been limited by difficulties in recovering AMPs from engineered bacteria (especially E. coli) at high levels due to their toxicity to host cells, susceptibility to proteolytic degradation, and small size (37).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies have investigated AMPs fused with several partners, including bovine prochymosin (11), maltose-binding protein (10,25), F4 of the E. coli intracellular protein PurF (16,28), green fluorescent protein (GFP) (36), Pap3.30 from the Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteriophage PaP3 (29), bacterial thioredoxin (2), RepA of E. coli (39), intein (21), L-ribulokinase of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (5), the Cterminal fragment of light meromyosin (6), glutathione S-transferase (26), and immunoglobulin G (IgG)-binding domains from protein A (26). However, although some of these carrier molecules have greatly improved the stability and expression level (6,16,17,29) of the target AMP in the expression host, these strategies are still limited by low recovery yields and high levels of proteolytic degradation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, expressing recombinant soluble proteins, especially difficult-to-express big enzyme protein, is quite an arduous task because they often fold incorrectly and aggregate, leading to either rapid degradation or to the accumulation of inclusion bodies when expressed in E. coli. Fortunately, these problems are somewhat alleviated when the desired protein is expressed with a fusion partner, including F4 fragment of PurF (Pyo et al 2004), green fluorescent protein (GFP) (Skosyrev et al 2003) and protein PaP3.30 (Rao et al 2004). The fusion partner is often highly expressed in the host cells with an affinity tag for a particular ligand, which not only elevates the expression level of the fusion protein but also facilitates its purification (Nilsson et al 1997;Sun et al 2005).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%