| Chapter title |
Strategies for the Purification of Membrane Proteins.
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 20 |
| Book title |
Protein Chromatography
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-0716-3362-5_20 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-07-163361-8, 978-1-07-163362-5
|
| Authors |
Butler, Thomas J, Smith, Sinéad Marian, Butler, Thomas J. |
| Abstract |
Membrane proteins account for approximately 30% of the coding regions of all sequenced genomes, and they play crucial roles in many fundamental cell processes. However, there are relatively few membrane proteins with known three-dimensional structures. This is likely due to technical challenges associated with membrane protein extraction, solubilization, and purification. Membrane proteins are classified based on the level of interaction with membrane lipid bilayers, with peripheral membrane proteins associating non-covalently with the membrane, and integral membrane proteins associating more strongly by means of hydrophobic interactions. Generally speaking, peripheral membrane proteins can be purified by milder techniques than integral membrane proteins, with the latter's extraction requiring phospholipid bilayer disruption using detergents or organic solvents. In this chapter, important considerations for membrane protein purification are addressed, with a focus on the initial stages of membrane protein solubilization, where problems are most frequently encountered. Protocols are outlined for the extraction of peripheral membrane proteins, solubilization of integral membrane proteins, and sample clean-up and concentration. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 67% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 31% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 24% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |