|
Comparative Analyses |
Technology Options |
Purification |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cell-Based | Cell-Free | Chemical Synthesis | ||||
| E. coli | Alternative Hosts | Homologous Hosts | ||||
|
Strengths |
Established methods, vectors Renewable Very cost- effective for industrial-scale quantities |
Some higher success rates for certain proteins |
Codon bias or missing cofactor issues eliminated |
Scalable Readily automated Simplified cloning HT screening under readily manipulated conditions Cofactors Labels Production of toxic proteins |
Scalable Potential for automation Labels and unusual amino acids incorporated during synthesis |
Some tags demonstrated as high throughput, scalable Numerous chromatography reagents available |
|
Weaknesses |
Scalability and high-throughput automation |
Less developed methods, vectors Cost Not high throughput |
Large efforts to develop methods, vectors, strains Scalability and high-throughput automation |
Currently only spontaneous disulfide bond formation |
Ligations possible at only a small number of amino acid residues Refolding required |
Tag removal Tag interference |
|
Development Targets and Needs |
More strains, vectors, procedures for difficult proteins |
Improved vectors, strains, procedures for difficult proteins |
Procedures generalized to engineer uncharacterized microbes |
Automation demonstrated Directed disulfide bond formation Difficult proteins |
Protein folding problem solved Automated for high throughput |
Capability to predict effects of tags Microfluidics Integration with characterization Predictive capability for best purification and storage |
June 14-16, 2004, GTL Technology Deep Dive Workshop, Working Group on Genome-Based Reagents
The table above compares and contrasts strengths, weaknesses, and development needs of technologies for use in a high-throughput production environment.