Abstract

There are two types of light scattering measurements: static light scattering (SLS) and dynamic light scattering (DLS). The SLS method is used to estimate the molecular weight (MW) of particles by measuring the time-averaged intensity of light scattered by the particles, whereas the DLS method is used to estimate the diffusion coefficient of particles by observing the time-correlation of scattered light intensity. These techniques have recently been applied to the investigation of the aggregation, denaturation and folding, and complex formation of proteins in solution. However, the accuracy of protein size measurement by light scattering is poorly understood. In the present study, we carried out the size measurements of five globular proteins by SLS and DLS at a detection angle of 90˚ and compared these data to measurements made by size exclusion chromatography (SEC). The difference (%) between the MW estimated from each method and the MW calculated from the amino acid sequence (namely the calibration residual error) was regarded as an index of measurement accuracy. The averaged calibration residual errors were 5.2 and 4.7 for SEC and SLS measurements, respectively. For the DLS measurements, the extrapolation of the apparent hydrodynamic radii to a protein concentration of zero may effectively eliminate the interparticle and hydrodynamic interactions and significantly reduced the averaged calibration residual error to 4.8%. Our results suggested that the size of globular proteins can be estimated using light scattering measurements with an accuracy equivalent to that of SEC.

Keywords

Size Measurement; Light Scattering; Size Exclusion Chromatography

1. Introduction

To clarify the physical properties of biomolecules, it is necessary to measure their native sizes. Biochemical methods such as sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and size exclusion chromatography (SEC) are generally used for the characterization of proteins. However, these methods are necessarily performed under restrictive conditions of temperature, salt concentration and pH, which are not always representative of the proteins’ native environments. Biophysical techniques such as sedimentation equilibrium analytical ultracentrifugation and small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) are therefore used to determine the molecular weight (MW) of proteins in their native state. However, these methods are complex with limited availability to most researchers. Sedimentation equilibrium analytical ultracentrifugation generally requires sophisticated and expensive equipment and takes several hours to measure the size of each protein [1] . The SAXS method requires operation in a controlled area as an intense X-ray beam is used, which may result in radiation damage of the samples.

Recently, a nondestructive technique has gained popularity for exploring the size of macromolecules in solution [2] . Light scattering estimates the size and shape of particles by measuring the intensity of scattered light. There are two types of light scattering measurements: static light scattering (SLS) and dynamic light scattering (DLS). The SLS method estimates the MW of molecules by measuring the time-averaged intensity of light scattered by the particles, whereas the DLS method estimates the diffusion coefficient of particles by observing the time-correlation of scattered light intensity. The major advantages of light scattering over other techniques include the short time required to obtain data and its relative simplicity and accessibility to most researchers [2] . Light scattering has therefore frequently been used to investigate the aggregation [3] [4] , denaturation and folding [5] [6] , and complex formation [7] -[9] of proteins in solution. However, the accuracy of protein size measurement using light scattering methods such as DLS has been poorly evaluated thus far.

For the DLS measurements, the apparent hydrodynamic radii (R_H-app) of the proteins in solution were calculated as follows:

(1)

where k_B is the Boltzmann constant, T is absolute temperature, η is the viscosity coefficient and D is the diffusion coefficient of the protein. Since the intensity of scattered light is very low for small proteins, high protein concentrations are required to obtain the R_H-app with a sufficiently high signal-to-noise ratio. The diffusion coefficient may also be influenced by the interparticle interaction and by the hydrodynamic interaction that arises because a moving molecule induces solvent flow and hence exerts viscous forces on diffusing protein molecules nearby [5] [10] . Therefore, for DLS measurements, the protein concentration of the sample needs to be considered in order to obtain precise protein sizes.

In the present study, we measured the sizes of globular proteins by SLS and DLS at a detection angle of 90˚ and compared the results to those obtained by SEC. The R_H-app of five proteins estimated from DLS measurements increased linearly relative to their concentration, and the extrapolation of R_H-app to a protein concentration of zero significantly increased the measurement accuracy. Our results suggest that the size of globular proteins in their physiological states can be estimated by light scattering methods with an accuracy equivalent to that obtained by SEC analysis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

We used five globular proteins: aprotinin (bovine lung; 6.5 kDa), ribonuclease A (bovine pancreas; 13.7 kDa), carbonic anhydrase (bovine erythrocytes; 29.0 kDa), ovalbumin (hen egg white; 43.0 kDa) and conalbumin (chicken egg white; 75.0 kDa) present in the Gel Filtration LMW Calibration Kit (GE Healthcare, Buckinghamshire, UK). All proteins were diluted with PBS buffer containing 300 mM NaCl and 50 mM phosphate (pH 7.2). The molecular extinction coefficient at 280 nm (ε₂₈₀, M⁻¹cm⁻¹) of each protein was calculated with the following formula [11] :

(2)

where N_Trp, N_Tyr and N_s−s are the number of tryptophans, tyrosines and disulfide bonds, respectively, in each protein. Protein concentrations were determined from their absorbance at 280 nm with a UV-160 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, Kyoto, JP), using an ε₂₈₀ of 6335 for aprotinin, 9440 for ribonuclease A, 50,420 for carbonic anhydrase, 31,775 for ovalbumin and 88,165 for conalbumin.

2.2. SEC Measurements

SEC was performed using an AKTA Purifier column chromatography system with a Superdex G-75 30/10 column (GE Healthcare) in PBS buffer at room temperature (25˚C ± 1˚C). The concentrations and volumes of the applied samples were 22 ± 6 µM and 140 ± 13 µL, respectively. The flow rate was 0.5 mL/min. The partition coefficient (K_av) of each protein was calculated as, where V_E is the peak elution volume of each protein, V_c is the column volume (24 mL), and V₀ is the void volume (7.65 mL). The calibration line was obtained by the least squares method, and the differences between the MW_aa calculated from the amino acid sequences and the MW_SEC calibrated from K_av were used as indices of measurement accuracy.

2.3. SLS Measurements

SLS measurements of the globular protein solutions were carried out with a Zetasizer µV system (Malvern Instruments, Worcestershire, UK) and the data were analyzed according to the method described in the handling manual. The stock solutions of each protein were diluted with PBS buffer to 1.78 - 2.59 mg/mL (275 - 400 µM) for aprotinin, 1.35 - 2.73 mg/mL (100 - 300 µM) for ribonuclease A, 0.57 - 1.45 mg/mL (20 - 50 µM) for carbonic anhydrase, 0.43 - 1.1 mg/mL (10 - 25 µM) for ovalbumin and 0.37 - 0.94 mg/mL (5 - 12.5 µM) for conalbumin. 70 µL of the protein solutions were incubated at 20˚C for 30 min, centrifuged at 36,000 × g for 10 min at 20˚C to remove aggregates, and 50 µL of each resulting supernatant were transferred to a quartz sub-micro fluorimeter cuvette (Starna Scientific, London, UK). The cuvette was placed in the cell holder of the Zetasizer µV and SLS measurements were performed without any equilibration time. Light scattering was detected at 830 nm with a fixed detection angle of 90˚ and data were collected in automatic mode at 20˚C. The Rayleigh ratio (R_θ) was measured several times and the MW_deb was determined using the Zetasizer Software (Version 6.20; Malvern Instruments). The following mathematical relationship was observed between R_θ and MW_deb in the SLS data:

(3)

where, n₀ is the refractive index of the solvent, dn/dc is the refractive index increment, c is the solute concentration, N_A is Avogadro’s number, λ₀ is the wavelength of the laser, MW_deb is the molecular weight of particles obtained from Equation (3) and A₂ is the second virial coefficient. Kc/R_θ was plotted against the concentration, using a solvent refractive index of 1.334 and a refractive increment of 0.186 mL/g at 20˚C [12] .

2.4. DLS Measurements

DLS of the globular protein solutions was measured with a Zetasizer μV system and the data were analyzed according to the method described in the handling manual. Proteins were diluted with PBS buffer (viscosity, η = 0.9236 × 10⁻³ Pa·s) to a concentration of 300 - 450 μM for aprotinin, 100 - 250 μM for ribonuclease A, 6 - 41 μM for carbonic anhydrase, 30 - 60 μM for ovalbumin and 2.1 - 6.2 μM for conalbumin. 70 μL aliquots of the protein solutions were incubated at 25˚C for 30 min and then centrifuged at 36,000 × g for 10 min at 25˚C to remove aggregates. 45 μL of each resulting supernatant were transferred to a quartz sub-micro fluorimeter cuvette, placed in the cell holder and subjected to DLS measurements without any equilibration time. Light scattering was detected at 830 nm with a fixed detection angle of 90˚ and data were collected in automatic mode at 25˚C using a solvent refractive index of 1.334. The z-average molecular sizes in terms of the R_H-app in solution were determined using the Zetasizer Software (Version 6.20). DLS of each globular protein was measured several times. Standard deviations (SDs) of all R_H-app values obtained from the measurements were less than 0.05 nm. In these analyses, DLS data yielding a polydispersity index of greater than 0.3 were omitted.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. SEC

Figure 1(a) shows the elution profiles of blue dextran (a marker to confirm V₀), conalbumin, ovalbumin, carbonic anhydrase, ribonuclease A and aprotinin. The K_av at peak volumes of the five proteins show a linear relationship with the log (MW_aa) (Figure 1(b)). From the regression line, the calibrated MW_SEC were expressed as follows:

(4)

The difference between MW_aa and MW_SEC, i.e. the calibration residual error for each protein, which can be regarded as an index of the accuracy of SEC measurement, is shown in Table 1. The calibration residual error for each protein was 1.5% - 9.8% with an averaged error of 5.2% for MW_SEC.

3.2. SLS

The Kc/R_θ values of carbonic anhydrase (red), ribonuclease A (gray) and aprotinin (black) are shown in Figure 2(a), while those of conalbumin (blue) and ovalbumin (green) are shown in Figure 2(b). The Kc/R_θ values show a linear dependence on concentration, as expected from Debye’s relationship (Equation (3)). The MW_deb of each protein was obtained by extrapolation to a protein concentration of 0 g/mL. Figure 2(c) shows the relationship between the MW_deb and the MW_aa. From the regression line, the calibrated MW_SLS were expressed as follows:

(5)

The calibration residual error of MW_SLS for each protein is 0.1% - 7.6% as summarized in Table 1. The averaged error was 4.7%, suggesting that the SLS method for estimating the MW of globular proteins can yield measurement accuracy comparable to that of SEC.

3.3. DLS

Figure 3(a) shows the relationship between R_H-app and the concentrations of carbonic anhydrase (red), ribonuclease A (gray) and aprotinin (black), while Figure 3(b) shows that of conalbumin (blue) and ovalbumin (green). The R_H-app were observed to depend linearly on the protein concentration, as [13] , where c

^*Calibrated from the R_H-app at the lowest protein concentration.

is the concentration of the protein and θ is a parameter that account for the first order effect of both interparticle and hydrodynamic interactions (corresponding to the interaction parameter of the diffusion coefficient) [5] [10] . This concentration dependency strongly suggests that these interactions reduce the diffusion constants of all five proteins; the R_H were therefore smaller than the R_H-app at practical concentrations. By extrapolation to protein concentrations of zero, we estimated the correct R_H to be 1.29 ± 0.06 nm for aprotinin, 1.73 ± 0.03 nm for ribonuclease A, 2.19 ± 0.05 nm for carbonic anhydrase, 2.65 ± 0.04 nm for ovalbumin, and 3.10 ± 0.01 nm for conalbumin.

The blue bars and regression line in Figure 3(c) show the relationship between MW_aa and the extrapolated R_H, whereas the red bars and regression line show the relationship between the MW_aa and R_H-app at the lowest protein concentrations. The MW_DLS and MW_DLS-app of the globular proteins were estimated from the regression lines as follows:

(6-1)

(6-2)

The deviations of the data points from the regression line appear to be much smaller for R_H than for R_H-app. The MW_DLS, MW_DLS-app and their calibration residual errors for R_H and R_H-app at the lowest concentration are summarized in Table 1. The calibration errors for each protein are 2.1% - 10.0% for MW_DLS and 1.5% - 45.0% for MW_DLS-app, and averaged error was 4.8% for MW_DLS, which is much smaller than the 19.3% for MW_DLS-app. This result clearly indicated that the extrapolation of R_H-app to a protein concentration of zero significantly increases the accuracy of size measurement. In the relationship of, θ is a protein-specific parameter and the lowest protein concentrations to obtain the R_H-app with a sufficiently high signal-to-noise ratio are different for each protein. The extrapolation of R_H-app to a protein concentration of zero may effectively eliminate the interparticle and hydrodynamic interactions of each protein, and possibly contribute to increase the measurement accuracy.

Equation (6-1) can be expressed as follows:

(7)

Since the power index of R_H is close to 3, the latter term can be regarded as the volume of protein. Also, the value of 0.74 ± 0.07 is close to the reported densities of globular proteins (0.79 - 0.87 kDa/nm³) [14] [15] . The observed deviations from the theoretical values are probably correlated with the solvation of proteins in PBS buffer.

3.4. Accuracy of Size Measurements

Figure 4 shows the MW_SEC (blue bars and regression line), MW_SLS (green bars and regression line) and MW_DLS (red bars and regression line) plotted against the MW_aa. The calibration residual errors(%) and estimated MWs (kDa) are shown in Table 1. The errors of three MWs (MW_SEC, MW_SLS and MW_DLS) were less than 10% for each protein, and the averaged errors were 4.7% - 5.2%. SEC, SLS and DLS therefore show comparable accuracy in the size measurement of globular proteins.

4. Summary and Conclusion

Light scattering is a method that can be used to measure the size of biomolecules relatively quickly without incurring radiation damage. The present study revealed that the extrapolation of R_H-app to a protein concentration of zero significantly increases the accuracy of size measurement for DLS, which led to the size estimation of globular proteins with an accuracy equivalent to that of SEC. We hope these results will promote further utilization of light scattering methods, not only for the size estimation, but also for analyses of conformational change, oligomeric structure and protein complex formation of various proteins.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Satoru Tokutomi at Osaka Prefecture University, and Dr. Norio Hamada and Dr. Ryosuke Nakamura at Osaka University for helpful suggestions and discussions. This research was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas (No. 23120517 to O.H.) from The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 22570162 to O.H.) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

References

NOTES

^*Corresponding author.