Search for: All records

Abstract Protein‐based drugs are among our most powerful therapeutics, but their manufacture, storage, and distribution are hindered by solution instability and the expense of the necessary refrigeration. Formulating proteins as dry products, which is an almost entirely empirical endeavor, can ameliorate the problem, but recovery of an acceptable product upon resuspension is not always possible. Additional knowledge about dry protein structure and protection is necessary to make dry formulation both more rational and effective. While most biophysical and biochemical techniques necessitate solvated protein, solid‐state hydrogen–deuterium exchange enables the study of dry proteins. Fourier‐transform infrared spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, and liquid‐observed vapor exchange nuclear magnetic resonance have all been used to measure isotopic exchange. These methods report on secondary structure, peptide, and residue level exposure, respectively. Recent studies using solid‐state hydrogen–deuterium exchange provide insight into the mechanisms of dry protein protection and uncover stabilizing and destabilizing interactions, bringing us closer to rational formulation of these lifesaving products. 

Abstract The cosolvent 2,2,2‐trifluoroethanol (TFE) is often used to mimic protein desiccation. We assessed the effects of TFE on cytosolic abundant heat soluble protein D (CAHS D) from tardigrades. CAHS D is a member of a unique protein class that is necessary and sufficient for tardigrades to survive desiccation. We find that the response of CAHS D to TFE depends on the concentration of both species. Dilute CAHS D remains soluble and, like most proteins exposed to TFE, gains α‐helix. More concentrated solutions of CAHS D in TFE accumulate β‐sheet, driving both gel formation and aggregation. At even higher TFE and CAHS D concentrations, samples phase separate without aggregation or increases in helix. Our observations show the importance of considering protein concentration when using TFE. 

Abstract Many small globular proteins exist in only two states—the physiologically relevant folded state and an inactive unfolded state. The active state is stabilized by numerous weak attractive contacts, including hydrogen bonds, other polar interactions, and the hydrophobic effect. Knowledge of these interactions is key to understanding the fundamental equilibrium thermodynamics of protein folding and stability. We focus on one such interaction, that between amide and aromatic groups. We provide a statistically convincing case for quantitative, linear entropy–enthalpy compensation in forming aromatic–amide interactions using published model compound transfer‐free energy data.