Participants
| Role | Name | HCID | Charge |
|---|
| Reactant | Thiodiglycol | HCID 5447 | — |
| Reactant | 2-(Dodecyloxy)ethanol | HCID 24750 | — |
| Reactant | Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-((1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenyl)-omega-hydroxy-, potassium salt (1:1) | HCID 24775 | — |
| Reactant | 3-((3-Cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio)-2-hydroxy-1-propanesulfonate | HCID 122145 | — |
| Reactant | Sodium Lauryl Sulfate | HCID 3423265 | — |
| Product | Deoxycholic Acid | HCID 222528 | — |
| Product | Sodium Lauryl Sulfate | HCID 3423265 | — |
Reaction Steps
The FIG. 7 shows the results. The samples were loaded on the gels in the following order (from left to right) lane-1 control sample, lane 2-3 thiodiglycol, lane 4-5 Tween-20, lane 6-7 NP-40, lane 8-9 Brij-35, lane 10 SDS, lane 11 CHAPSO, 12-13 Triton-X100, lane 14 CHAP lane 15 control. The electrophoresis results shows (after a comparison of several typical runs) that, with exception of SDS and de-oxycholate treated protein samples, most protein samples containing detergent showed batch to batch variation in protein precipitation yield. The protein precipitation yield depended on the techniques used for harvesting the precipitated protein. There were occasions when the precipitation yield of duplicate samples varied between 100% to 50%. Protein samples containing SDS invariably showed substantially 100% yield in multiple tests.
Provenance & Evidence
| DOI | 10.6084/m9.figshare.5104873.v1 |
|---|
| Patent number | US06875617B2 |
|---|
| Source dataset | uspto-grants-2005_04 |
|---|
| ORD ID | ord-2619c2e4fef642bd912dcf54c1e6b415 |
|---|
| Source note | uspto-grants-2005_04 |
|---|
