Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 408, Issue 1, pp 203–215 | Cite as

Influence of pigments and protein aging on protein identification in historically representative casein-based paints using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

  • Fang Ren
  • Natalya Atlasevich
  • Brian Baade
  • John Loike
  • Julie ArslanogluEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

A systematic study on the influence of pigments and sample aging on casein identification was performed on 30 reconstructed paints. The protein in all the paints was extracted into solution for analysis. The amount of protein that can be retrieved for solution-based analysis in each of the reconstructed paints was studied with a well-developed NanoOrange method before and after artificial aging. The results showed that in the paints with calcium phosphate (in bone black) and copper carbonate, hydroxide, or acetate (in verdigris and azurite), the amount of protein that can be retrieved for liquid-phase analysis is much smaller than the other paints, indicating that the protein degradation was accelerated significantly in those paints. Carbon (in vine black), calcium carbonate (in natural chalk), and calcium sulfate (terra alba gypsum and ground alabaster) did not affect much the amount of protein that can be retrieved in the paints compared to non-pigmented binder, meaning that the protein degradation rate was not affected much by those pigments. Artificial aging was observed to decrease the amount of retrievable protein in all the reconstructed paints that were studied. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method was applied to the 28 reconstructed paints (except two verdigris paints) to assess the protein identification. The ELISA responses from the different paints were compared at fixed protein concentrations. Natural chalk, bone black, raw sienna, stack lead white, and cochineal red-violet lake had the lowest ELISA signal in this study, which indicated that the binding sites (epitopes) on the target protein in these paints are likely to deteriorate more than those in the other paints. Artificial aging did not influence the ELISA response as much as the pigments when the protein concentration was kept the same for the paints that were studied.

Keywords

Casein paint Cultural heritage Protein degradation Pigment and protein interaction ELISA NanoOrange 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from National Science Foundation CHE-1041839. We thank Ms. M. Herre from the Rockefeller University for reproducing the NanoOrange and ELISA data. We also thank A. Sturm and J. DeLuca from University of Delaware for their contribution in making reconstructed paints.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

216_2015_9089_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (289 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 289 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Standeven HAL (2011) House paints, 1900–1960: history and use. Research in conservation. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scholz H (1953) History of water-thinned paints. Ind Eng Chem 45(4):709–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gettens RJ, Stout GL (1966) Painting materials: a short encyclopaedia. Dover Publications, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Skeist I (1990) Handbook of adhesives. Chapman & Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chrambach A, Reisfeld R, Wyckoff M, Zaccari J (1967) A procedure for rapid and sensitive staining of protein fractionated by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Anal Biochem 20(1):150–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wolbers R, Landrey G The use of direct reactive fluorescent dyes for the characterization of binding media in cross sectional examinations. In: Preprints of Papers Presented at the Fifteenth Annual Meeting, American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, Vancouver, British Columbia, May 20–24, 1987. Citeseer, pp 168–202Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meilunas RJ, Bentsen JG, Steinberg A (1990) Analysis of aged paint binders by FTIR spectroscopy. Stud Conserv 35(1):33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carbó MD, Reig FB, Adelantado JG, Martinez VP (1996) Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and the analytical study of works of art for purposes of diagnosis and conservation. Anal Chim Acta 330(2):207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burgio L, Clark RJ (2001) Library of FT-Raman spectra of pigments, minerals, pigment media and varnishes, and supplement to existing library of Raman spectra of pigments with visible excitation. Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 57(7):1491–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kong J, Yu S (2007) Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic analysis of protein secondary structures. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin 39(8):549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rizzo A (2008) Progress in the application of ATR-FTIR microscopy to the study of multi-layered cross-sections from works of art. Anal Bioanal Chem 392(1–2):47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spring M, Ricci C, Peggie DA, Kazarian SG (2008) ATR-FTIR imaging for the analysis of organic materials in paint cross sections: case studies on paint samples from the National Gallery, London. Anal Bioanal Chem 392(1–2):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mazzeo R, Prati S, Quaranta M, Joseph E, Kendix E, Galeotti M (2008) Attenuated total reflection micro FTIR characterisation of pigment–binder interaction in reconstructed paint films. Anal Bioanal Chem 392(1–2):65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Fonjaudran CM, Nevin A, Piqué F, Cather S (2008) Stratigraphic analysis of organic materials in wall painting samples using micro-FTIR attenuated total reflectance and a novel sample preparation technique. Anal Bioanal Chem 392(1–2):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mazzeo R, Prati S, Quaranta M, Joseph E, Kendix E, Galeotti M (2008) Attenuated total reflection micro FTIR characterisation of pigment–binder interaction in reconstructed paint films. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 392(1–2):65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grzywacz CM (1994) Identification of proteinaceous binding media in paintings by amino acid analysis using 9-fluorenylmethyl chloroformate derivatization and reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr A 676(1):177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Halpine SM (1995) An investigation of artists’ materials using amino acid analysis: introduction of the one-hour extraction method. Studies in the History of Art 51:28–69Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zangrando R, Piazza R, Cairns WRL, Izzo FC, Vianello A, Zendri E, Gambaro A (2010) Quantitative determination of un-derivatised amino acids in artistic mural paintings using high-performance liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization triple quadrupole mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta 675:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chiavari G, Galletti GC, Lanterna G, Mazzeo R (1993) The potential of pyrolysis—gas chromatography/mass spectrometry in the recognition of ancient painting media. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 24(3):227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Casoli A, Musini PC, Palla G (1996) Gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric approach to the problem of characterizing binding media in paintings. J Chromatogr A 731(1):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Castro RM, Dome M, Marti VP, Adelantado JG, Reig FB (1997) Study of binding media in works of art by gas chromatographic analysis of amino acids and fatty acids derivatized with ethyl chloroformate. J Chromatogr A 778(1):373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Colombini MP, Andreotti A, Bonaduce I, Modugno F, Ribechini E (2010) Analytical strategies for characterizing organic paint media using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Acc Chem Res 43(6):715–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henzel WJ, Watanabe C, Stults JT (2003) Protein identification: the origins of peptide mass fingerprinting. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 14(9):931–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hynek R, Kuckova S, Hradilova J, Kodicek M (2004) Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry as a tool for fast identification of protein binders in color layers of paintings. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 18(17):1896–1900. doi: 10.1002/rcm.1570 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fremout W, Kuckova S, Crhova M, Sanyova J, Saverwyns S, Hynek R, Kodicek M, Vandenabeele P, Moens L (2011) Classification of protein binders in artist’s paints by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrometry: an evaluation of principal component analysis (PCA) and soft independent modelling of class analogy (SIMCA). Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 25(11):1631–1640. doi: 10.1002/rcm.5027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kirby DP, Phillips KR, Khandekar N. Implementation of MALDI mass fingerprinting in a museum laboratory for the identification of proteins in works of art. http://www.ndt.net/article/art2011/papers/KIRBY%20-%20M%201.pdf
  27. 27.
    Ramirez-Barat B, de la Vina S (2001) Characterization of proteins in paint medis by immunofluorescence: a note on methodological aspects. Studies in Conservation 46Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kockaert L, Gausset P, Dubi-Rucquoy M (1989) Detection of ovalbumin in paint media by immunofluorescence. Studies in Conservation 34(4):183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hu W, Zhang K, Zhang H, Zhang B, Rong B (2015) Analysis of polychromy binder on Qin Shihuang’s Terracotta Warriors by immunofluorescence microscopy. J Cult Herit 16(2):244–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dolci L, Sciutto G, Guardigli M, Rizzoli M, Prati S, Mazzeo R, Roda A (2008) Ultrasensitive chemiluminescent immunochemical identification and localization of protein components in painting cross-sections by microscope low-light imaging. Anal Bioanal Chem 392(1):29–35. doi: 10.1007/s00216-008-2023-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sciutto G, Dolci LS, Guardigli M, Zangheri M, Prati S, Mazzeo R, Roda A (2013) Single and multiplexed immunoassays for the chemiluminescent imaging detection of animal glues in historical paint cross-sections. Anal Bioanal Chem 405(2–3):933–940. doi: 10.1007/s00216-012-6463-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sciutto G, Dolci L, Buragina A, Prati S, Guardigli M, Mazzeo R, Roda A (2011) Development of a multiplexed chemiluminescent immunochemical imaging technique for the simultaneous localization of different proteins in painting micro cross-sections. Anal Bioanal Chem 399(9):2889–2897. doi: 10.1007/s00216-010-4258-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Arslanoglu J, Zaleski S, Loike J (2011) An improved method of protein localization in artworks through SERS nanotag-complexed antibodies. Anal Bioanal Chem 399(9):2997–3010. doi: 10.1007/s00216-010-4378-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perets E, Indrasekara A, Kurmis A, Atlasevich N, Fabris L, Arslanoglu J (2015) Carboxy-terminated immuno-SERS tags overcome non-specific aggregation for the robust detection and localization of organic media in artworks. Analyst 140(17):5971–5980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heginbotham A, Millay V, Quick M (2006) The use of immunofluorescence microscopy and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay as complementary techniques for protein identification in artists’ materials. J Am Inst Conserv 45(2):89–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mazurek J, Heginbotham A, Schilling M, Chiari G (2008) Antibody assay to characterize binding media in paint. ICOM Committee for Conservation 2:678–685Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cartechini L, Vagnini M, Palmieri M, Pitzurra L, Mello T, Mazurek J, Chiari G (2010) Immunodetection of proteins in ancient paint media. Acc Chem Res 43(6):867–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Palmieri M, Vagnini M, Pitzurra L, Rocchi P, Brunetti BG, Sgamellotti A, Cartechini L (2011) Development of an analytical protocol for a fast, sensitive and specific protein recognition in paintings by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Anal Bioanal Chem 399(9):3011–3023. doi: 10.1007/s00216-010-4308-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee HY, Atlasevich N, Granzotto C, Schultz J, Loike J, Arslanoglu J (2015) Development and application of an ELISA method for the analysis of protein-based binding media of artworks. Anal Methods 7(1):187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jones LJ, Haugland RP, Singer VL (2003) Development and characterization of the NanoOrange® Protein quantitation assay: a fluorescence-based assay of proteins in solution. BioTechniques 34(4):850–861Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wehlte K (1967) Werkstoff and Techniken der Malerei (The materials and techniques of painting), 2001st edn. Kremer Pigments, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gottsegen M (2006) The painter’s handbook Watson-Guptill Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mills J, White R (2012) Organic chemistry of museum objects. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schilling MR, Khanjian HP (1996) Gas chromatographic analysis of amino acids as ethyl chloroformate derivativesGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
  46. 46.
    Karpowicz A (1981) Ageing and deterioration of proteinaceous media. Stud Conserv 26(4):153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Colombini MP, Fuoco R, Giacomelli A, Muscatello B (1998) Characterization of proteinaceous binders in wall painting samples by microwave-assisted acid hydrolysis and GC-MS determination of amino acids. Stud Conserv 43(1):33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Osticioli I, Nevin A, Anglos D, Burnstock A, Cather S, Becucci M, Fotakis C, Castellucci E (2008) Micro‐Raman and fluorescence spectroscopy for the assessment of the effects of the exposure to light on films of egg white and egg yolk. J Raman Spectrosc 39(2):307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hommes MvE (2004) Changing pictures: discolouration in 15th-17th century oil paintings. LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fang Ren
    • 1
  • Natalya Atlasevich
    • 1
    • 4
  • Brian Baade
    • 2
  • John Loike
    • 3
  • Julie Arslanoglu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Scientific ResearchThe Metropolitan Museum of ArtNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Art ConservationUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  3. 3.College of Physicians and SurgeonsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Genzyme Science CenterFraminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations