SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Expression and purification of tau protein and its frontotemporal dementia variants using a cleavable histidine tag.

Protein Expr Purif · 2016-09-20

DOI: 10.1016/j.pep.2016.09.009PMID: 27663563

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Recombinant tau protein is widely used to study the biochemical, cellular and pathological aspects of tauopathies, including Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia with Parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTPD-17). Pure tau in high yield is a requirement for in vitro evaluation of the protein's physiological and toxic functions. However, the preparation of recombinant tau is complicated by the protein's propensity to aggregate and form truncation products, necessitating the use of multiple, time-consuming purification methods. In this study, we investigated parameters that influence the expression of wild type and FTPD-17 pathogenic tau, in an attempt to identify ways to maximise expression yield. Here, we report on the influence of the choice of host strain, induction temperature, duration of induction, and media supplementation with glucose on tau expression in Escherichia coli. We also describe a straightforward process to purify the expressed tau proteins using immobilised metal affinity chromatography, with favourable yields over previous reports. An advantage of the described method is that it enables high yield production of functional oligomeric and monomeric tau, both of which can be used to study the biochemical, physiological and toxic properties of the protein.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.