Synonymous Gene Recoding Affects the Accuracy of Protein Quantification Measurements.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Nayiri M Kaissarian, Nigam Padhiar, Nathan Clement, Wells W Wu, Upendra Katneni, Anton A Komar, Chava Kimchi-Sarfaty
{"title":"Synonymous Gene Recoding Affects the Accuracy of Protein Quantification Measurements.","authors":"Nayiri M Kaissarian, Nigam Padhiar, Nathan Clement, Wells W Wu, Upendra Katneni, Anton A Komar, Chava Kimchi-Sarfaty","doi":"10.1208/s12248-026-01310-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accurate measurement of therapeutic protein concentration is critical for ensuring manufacturing consistency. Synonymous gene recoding is often used to improve protein yield, including for coagulation Factor IX (FIX), used to treat Hemophilia B. Although synonymous recoding does not alter primary amino acid sequence, it can affect protein conformation, potentially influencing the accuracy of protein quantification depending on the method used. In this study, we investigated whether synonymous changes in F9 gene, which encodes FIX, impacted reliability of commonly used protein quantitation methods. HEK293- FlpIn cells were used to generate FIX proteins expressed from seven different synonymous F9 sequences. Purified proteins were initially measured using absorbance at 280 nm, followed by quantification using various colorimetric, and fluorometric protein assays. Relative differences among protein quantification methods were inconsistent between wild-type and synonymous F9 variants. Compared with A280 measurements, mean differences across variants ranged from - 33% to - 8% for Bradford and from 14 to 54% for BCA, whereas wider ranges were observed for OPA (- 23% to 133%), CBQCA (14% to 282%), and Lowry (1% to 185%). Bradford and BCA also exhibited lower intra-assay variability, with standard deviations of 6% and 10%, respectively, compared with 12%, 18%, and 33% for OPA, CBQCA, and Lowry assays. These findings indicate that synonymous codon substitutions influence protein quantification outcomes, with Bradford and BCA producing more consistent results and lowest variability, whereas amine-reactive fluorescence-based assays (OPA and CBQCA) showed greater inconsistencies. In conclusion, protein quantification methods may not produce consistent accuracy among proteins translated from synonymously recoded sequences.</p>","PeriodicalId":50934,"journal":{"name":"AAPS Journal","volume":"28 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPS Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-026-01310-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurate measurement of therapeutic protein concentration is critical for ensuring manufacturing consistency. Synonymous gene recoding is often used to improve protein yield, including for coagulation Factor IX (FIX), used to treat Hemophilia B. Although synonymous recoding does not alter primary amino acid sequence, it can affect protein conformation, potentially influencing the accuracy of protein quantification depending on the method used. In this study, we investigated whether synonymous changes in F9 gene, which encodes FIX, impacted reliability of commonly used protein quantitation methods. HEK293- FlpIn cells were used to generate FIX proteins expressed from seven different synonymous F9 sequences. Purified proteins were initially measured using absorbance at 280 nm, followed by quantification using various colorimetric, and fluorometric protein assays. Relative differences among protein quantification methods were inconsistent between wild-type and synonymous F9 variants. Compared with A280 measurements, mean differences across variants ranged from - 33% to - 8% for Bradford and from 14 to 54% for BCA, whereas wider ranges were observed for OPA (- 23% to 133%), CBQCA (14% to 282%), and Lowry (1% to 185%). Bradford and BCA also exhibited lower intra-assay variability, with standard deviations of 6% and 10%, respectively, compared with 12%, 18%, and 33% for OPA, CBQCA, and Lowry assays. These findings indicate that synonymous codon substitutions influence protein quantification outcomes, with Bradford and BCA producing more consistent results and lowest variability, whereas amine-reactive fluorescence-based assays (OPA and CBQCA) showed greater inconsistencies. In conclusion, protein quantification methods may not produce consistent accuracy among proteins translated from synonymously recoded sequences.

同义基因重编码影响蛋白质定量测量的准确性。
治疗蛋白浓度的准确测量是确保生产一致性的关键。同义基因重编码通常用于提高蛋白质产量,包括用于治疗b型血友病的凝血因子IX (FIX)。虽然同义基因重编码不会改变初级氨基酸序列,但它会影响蛋白质的构象,可能影响所使用方法的蛋白质定量的准确性。在本研究中,我们研究了编码FIX的F9基因的同义变化是否会影响常用蛋白质定量方法的可靠性。用HEK293- FlpIn细胞产生7个不同同义F9序列表达的FIX蛋白。纯化蛋白最初使用280 nm吸光度测量,随后使用各种比色和荧光蛋白测定进行定量。野生型和同义F9变异之间蛋白质定量方法的相对差异不一致。与A280测量值相比,Bradford的平均差异为- 33%至- 8%,BCA的平均差异为14%至54%,而OPA(- 23%至133%)、CBQCA(14%至282%)和Lowry(1%至185%)的差异更大。Bradford和BCA也表现出较低的测定内变异性,标准差分别为6%和10%,而OPA、CBQCA和Lowry测定的标准差分别为12%、18%和33%。这些发现表明,同义密码子替换影响蛋白质定量结果,Bradford和BCA产生更一致的结果和最低的变异性,而基于胺反应性荧光的测定(OPA和CBQCA)显示出更大的不一致性。总之,蛋白质定量方法可能无法在同义重新编码序列翻译的蛋白质之间产生一致的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AAPS Journal
AAPS Journal 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.40%
发文量
109
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The AAPS Journal, an official journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), publishes novel and significant findings in the various areas of pharmaceutical sciences impacting human and veterinary therapeutics, including: · Drug Design and Discovery · Pharmaceutical Biotechnology · Biopharmaceutics, Formulation, and Drug Delivery · Metabolism and Transport · Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacometrics · Translational Research · Clinical Evaluations and Therapeutic Outcomes · Regulatory Science We invite submissions under the following article types: · Original Research Articles · Reviews and Mini-reviews · White Papers, Commentaries, and Editorials · Meeting Reports · Brief/Technical Reports and Rapid Communications · Regulatory Notes · Tutorials · Protocols in the Pharmaceutical Sciences In addition, The AAPS Journal publishes themes, organized by guest editors, which are focused on particular areas of current interest to our field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书