Advertisement

Biophysical Reviews

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 3–13 | Cite as

Allowance for boundary sharpening in the determination of diffusion coefficients by sedimentation velocity: a historical perspective

  • Donald J. WinzorEmail author
  • David J. Scott
Review

Abstract

This review summarizes endeavors undertaken in the middle of last century to employ the Lamm equation for quantitative analysis of boundary spreading in sedimentation velocity experiments on globular proteins, thereby illustrating the ingenuity required to achieve that goal in an era when an approximate analytical solution of that nonlinear differential equation of second order provided the only means for its application. Application of procedures based on that approximate solution to simulated sedimentation velocity distributions has revealed a slight disparity (about 3%) between returned and input values of the diffusion coefficient—a discrepancy comparable with that of estimates obtained by current simulative analyses based on numerical solution of the Lamm equation. Although the massive technological developments in the gathering and treatment of sedimentation velocity data over the past three to four decades have changed dramatically the manner in which boundary spreading is analyzed, they have not led to any significant improvement in the accuracy of the diffusion coefficient thereby deduced.

Keywords

Analytical centrifugation Sedimentation velocity Sedimentation coefficient Concentration dependence Boundary spreading Diffusion coefficient 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Peter Schuck for helpful advice on the use of his SEDFIT program for the simulation of sedimentation velocity distributions. The financial support of this investigation by the Science and Technology Facilities Council (UK) through an award to DJS is also gratefully acknowledged, as is the travel and accommodation support provided to DJW by the University of Nottingham over many years for this collaborative project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Donald J. Winzor declares that he has no conflicts of interest. David J. Scott declares that he has no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Baldwin RL (1957) Boundary spreading in sedimentation velocity experiments. 5. Measurement of the diffusion coefficient of bovine albumin by Fujita’s equation. Biochem J 65:503–512CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Behlke J, Ristau O (1997) Molecular mass determination by sedimentation velocity experiments and direct fitting of the concentration profiles. Biophys J 72:435–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Behlke J, Ristau O (2002) A new approximate whole boundary solution of the Lamm differential equation for the analysis of sedimentation velocity experiments. Biophys Chem 95:59–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Billick IH, Weiss GH (1966) The solution to a nonlinear Lamm equation in the Faxén approximation. J Res Natl Bur Stds 70A:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braswell EH (1987) Polyelectrolyte charge corrected molecular weight and effective charge by sedimentation. Biophys J 51:273–281CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Cecil R, Ogston AG (1949) The sedimentation constant, diffusion constant and molecular weight of lactoglobulin. Biochem J 44:33–35CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Claverie JM, Dreux H, Cohen R (1975) Sedimentation of generalized systems of interacting particles. 1. Solution of systems of complete Lamm equations. Biopolymers 13:1685–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox DJ, Dale RS (1981) Simulation of transport experiments for interacting systems. In: Frieden C, Nichol LW (eds) Protein–protein interactions. Wiley, New York, pp 173–211Google Scholar
  9. Creeth JM (1952) The use of the Guoy diffusiometer with dilute protein solutions: an assessment of the accuracy of the method. Biochem J 51:10–17CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Creeth JM (1955) Studies of free diffusion in liquids with the Rayleigh method. 1. The determination of differential diffusion coefficients in concentration-dependent systems of two components. J Am Chem Soc 77:6428–6440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creeth JM (1958) Studies of free diffusion in liquids with the Rayleigh method. III. The analysis of known mixtures and some preliminary investigations with proteins. J Phys Chem 62:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creeth JM, Winzor DJ (1962) Physicochemical studies on ovalbumin. 4. Characterization of an iodine-modified derivative by electrophoresis and diffusion. Biochem J 83:566–574CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Creeth JM, Nichol LW, Winzor DJ (1958) Physicochemical studies on ovalbumin. 1. Electrophoretic fractionation and characterization by diffusion. J Phys Chem 62:1546–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dam J, Schuck P (2004) Calculating sedimentation coefficient distributions by direct modelling of sedimentation velocity profiles. Methods Enzymol 384:185–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Demeler B (2005) Ultrascan—a comprehensive data analysis software for analytical ultracentrifugation experiments. In: Scott DJ, Harding SJ, Rowe AJ (eds) Analytical ultracentrifugation: techniques and methods. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp 210–219Google Scholar
  16. Dishon M, Weiss GH, Yphantis DA (1967) Numerical solution of the Lamm equation. III. Velocity centrifugation. Biopolymers 5:697–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Faxén H (1929) Über eine Differentialgleichung aus der physikalischen Chemie. Ark Mat Astron Fys 21B(3):1–6Google Scholar
  18. Fujita H (1956) Effects of concentration dependence of the sedimentation coefficient in velocity sedimentation. J Chem Phys 24:1084–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fujita H (1959) Evaluation of diffusion coefficients from sedimentation velocity measurements. J Phys Chem 63:1092–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fujita H (1962) Mathematical theory of sedimentation analysis. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill TL (1959) Theory of solutions. II. Osmotic pressure virial expansion and light scattering in two-component solutions. J Chem Phys 30:93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holladay LA (1979) An approximate solution of the Lamm equation. Biophys Chem 10:187–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Inkerman PA, Winzor DJ, Zerner B (1975) Carboxylesterases (EC 3.1.1.1). The molecular sizes of chicken and pig liver carboxylesterases. Can J Biochem 53:547–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kegeles G, Gutter FJ (1951) The determination of sedimentation constants from Fresnel diffraction patterns. J Am Chem Soc 73:3770–3777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirkwood JG, Goldberg RJ (1950) Light scattering arising from composition fluctuations in multi-component systems. J Chem Phys 18:54–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lamm O (1929) Die Differentialgleichung der Ultrazentrifugierung. Ark Mat Astron Fys 21B(2):1–4Google Scholar
  27. Li Y, Stafford WF, Hesselberg M, Hayes D, Wu Z, Byrne M (2012) Interferon-α2b, albinterferon-α2b and pegasys. J Pharm Sci 101:68–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Longsworth LG (1953) Diffusion coefficients, at 25°, of aqueous solutions of amino acids, peptides and sugars. J Am Chem Soc 75:5705–5709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patel TR, Winzor DJ, Scott DJ (2017) Allowance for radial dilution in evaluating the concentration dependence of sedimentation coefficients for globular proteins. Eur Biophys J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00249-017-1259-x
  30. Philo JS (1997) An improved function for fitting sedimentation velocity data for low molecular weight solutes. Biophys J 72:435–444CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Philo JS (2006) Improved methods for fitting sedimentation coefficient distributions derived by time-derivative techniques. Anal Biochem 354:238–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rowe AJ (2005) Weak interactions: optical algorithms for their study in the AUC. In: Scott DJ, Harding SE, Rowe AJ (eds) Analytical ultracentrifugation: techniques and methods. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp 484–500Google Scholar
  33. Schuck P (1998) Sedimentation analysis of noninteracting and self-associating solutes using numerical solutions to the Lamm equation. Biophys J 75:1503–1512CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Schuck P (2000) Size distribution analysis of macromolecules by sedimentation velocity analytical ultracentrifugation and Lamm modelling. Biophys J 78:1606–1609CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Schuck P (2005) Diffusion-deconvoluted sedimentation codefficient distributions for the analysis of interacting and non-interacting protein mixtures. In: Scott DJ, Harding SE, Rowe AJ (eds) Analytical ultracentrifugation: techniques and methods. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp 26–63Google Scholar
  36. Schuck P, Demeler B (1999) Direct sedimentation analysis of interference optical data in analytical ultracentrifugation. Biophys J 76:2288–2296CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Schuck P, Rossmanith P (2000) Determination of the sedimentation coefficient distribution by least-squares boundary modelling. Biopolymers 54:328–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Schuck P, MacPhee CE, Howlett GJ (1998) Determination of sedimentation coefficients for small peptides. Biophys J 74:466–474CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Scott DJ, Harding SE, Winzor DJ (2014) Concentration dependence of translational diffusion coefficients for globular proteins. Analyst 139:6242–6248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Solovyova A, Schuck P, Costenaro L, Ebel C (2001) Non-ideality by sedimentation velocity of halophilic malate dehydrogenase in complex solvents. Biophys J 81:1868–1880CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Stafford WF, Sherwood PJ (2004) Analysis of heterologous interacting systems by sedimentation velocity: curve-fitting algorithms for estimation of sedimentation coefficients, equilibrium and kinetic constants. Biophys Chem 108:231–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Stockmayer WH (1950) Light scattering in multi-component systems. J Chem Phys 18:58–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stockmayer WH (1951) Theory of moving concentration boundaries. Trans NY Acad Sci 13:266–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Todd GP, Haschemeyer RH (1981) General solution to the inverse problem of the differential equation of the ultracentrifuge. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:6739–6743CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Holde KE (1960) A modification of Fujita’s method for the calculation of diffusion coefficients from boundary spreading in the ultracentrifuge. J Phys Chem 64:1582–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weiss GH (1964) An Archibald-type solution to a non-linear Lamm equation. Nature 202:792–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weiss GH, Yphantis DA (1965) Rectangular approximation for concentration-dependent sedimentation in the ultracentrifuge. J Chem Phys 42:2117–2123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Winitzki S (2008) A handy approximation for the error function and its inverse. https://sites.google.com/site/winitzki/sergei-winitzkis-files
  49. Winzor DJ, Carrington LE, Harding SE (2004a) Limitations of the ultracentrifugal approach for measuring the effective net charge of a macroion. Anal Biochem 333:114–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Winzor DJ, Carrington LE, Deszczynski M, Harding SE (2004b) Extent of charge screening in aqueous polysaccharide solutions. Biomacromolecules 5:2456–2460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for Pure and Applied Biophysics (IUPAB) and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Chemistry and Molecular BiosciencesUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of BiosciencesUniversity of NottinghamLoughboroughUK
  3. 3.Rutherford Appleton LaboratoryResearch Complex at HarwellDidcotUK

Personalised recommendations