IcationProteins containing red shifted sGFP fusions were quantified by fluorescence measurement with an excitation purchase Sermorelin wavelength of 484 nm and emission wavelength of 510 nm [5]. Further method parameters were defined in the TECAN Magellan 5.03 software: Gain (Manual): 25; Number of reads: 10; Integration time: 40 ms; Lag time: 0 ms; Mirror selection: automatic; Multiple reads perChemical Chaperones for Improving Protein QualityTable 3. Compatibility of protein stabilizing compounds to the CF system.sGFP1 6 ++ 6 6 6 6 6 6 + 6 + + + 6 Working range2 .250 mM .20 mM ,150 mM #10 ,8 ,4 ,2 ,4 .6 ,4 ,6 ,4.8 ,4.8 ,1 Others Alcohols sGFP1 ++ + ++ ++ + ++ + + 6 6 6 Working range2 .10 mM ,100 mM ,10 mM .20 mM .40 mM .400 mM3 #5 #8 #5 #3 ,1 ,1 ,0.001 ,100 mMClass PolyionsCompound Betaine Choline EctoineClass Amino acidsCompound L-OH- proline N-acetyl-L- lysine L-carnitine L-arginine Sarcosine L-glutamic- acid M��-Sitosterol ��-D-glucoside chemical information Ethanol Ethanol Isopropanol Butanol Pentanol Hexanol PEI 2,000 UreaPolyolsSucrose Glycerol D-trehalose D-mannose D-sorbitolPEGsPEG 200 PEG 400 PEG 1,000 PEG 6,000 PEG 8,000 PEG 10,1 effect on fluorescent sGFP expression: 6, tolerated over a certain concentration range; -, decrease in fluorescent sGFP expression;+and ++, increase in fluorescent sGFP expression. 2 working range is defined with no more than 20 decrease in fluorescent sGFP expression. At the indicated concentration limits, the analyzed chemicals have either no effect or a slight quenching effect of maximal 10 on sGFP fluorescence. 3 used as basic buffer compound. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056637.tand optimal concentration ranges were determined in between 20?8 mM depending on the S30 extract preparation. Reducing conditions could become important depending on the nature of the synthesized target proteins. DTT as reducing agent is tolerated in the reaction at least up to 10 mM final concentration while it could also be completely omitted 15755315 without significant effects. NH4+ ions were tolerated at least up to 30 mM final concentration (Fig. 1A). Protein expression increased with plasmid DNA template concentrations up to 2? ng/ml reaction and then remained at a relatively stable plateau. The DNA template concentration optimum appeared to be independent from the coding regions of sGFP or GNA1-sGFP (Fig. 1B). Mg2+ ions could interact with other negatively charged compounds of the reaction such as NTPs or PEP and correlated optimal concentration ranges were analyzed (Fig. 2). With the combination of NTP mix and Mg2+, optimal efficiency was determined within the range of 1? fold NTP mix and 20?6 mM Mg2+ (Fig. 2A). With the combination of PEP and Mg2+, optimal concentrations were ranging from 36?0 mM and 24?0 mM, respectively (Fig. 2B). After establishing reaction conditions, 1326631 the protein production in the CF batch reaction could be scaled up to at least 1 ml reaction volumes without loss of efficiency.transcription but rather reduced CF translation [18] and 
also different effects correlated with the PEG molecular weight on proteins are known [20]. However, systematic analysis of PEGs with different molecular weights in CF systems have not been made yet.Alcohols as CF AdditivesOrganic solvents are usually denaturizing by disrupting hydrophobic contacts in between the nonpolar side chains of amino acids. These effects are concentration dependent and some solvents such as alcohols or ketones can even act as protein stabilizers at lower concentrations while they convert to denat.IcationProteins containing red shifted sGFP fusions were quantified by fluorescence measurement with an excitation wavelength of 484 nm and emission wavelength of 510 nm [5]. Further method parameters were defined in the TECAN Magellan 5.03 software: Gain (Manual): 25; Number of reads: 10; Integration time: 40 ms; Lag time: 0 ms; Mirror selection: automatic; Multiple reads perChemical Chaperones for Improving Protein QualityTable 3. Compatibility of protein stabilizing compounds to the CF system.sGFP1 6 ++ 6 6 6 6 6 6 + 6 + + + 6 Working range2 .250 mM .20 mM ,150 mM #10 ,8 ,4 ,2 ,4 .6 
,4 ,6 ,4.8 ,4.8 ,1 Others Alcohols sGFP1 ++ + ++ ++ + ++ + + 6 6 6 Working range2 .10 mM ,100 mM ,10 mM .20 mM .40 mM .400 mM3 #5 #8 #5 #3 ,1 ,1 ,0.001 ,100 mMClass PolyionsCompound Betaine Choline EctoineClass Amino acidsCompound L-OH- proline N-acetyl-L- lysine L-carnitine L-arginine Sarcosine L-glutamic- acid Methanol Ethanol Isopropanol Butanol Pentanol Hexanol PEI 2,000 UreaPolyolsSucrose Glycerol D-trehalose D-mannose D-sorbitolPEGsPEG 200 PEG 400 PEG 1,000 PEG 6,000 PEG 8,000 PEG 10,1 effect on fluorescent sGFP expression: 6, tolerated over a certain concentration range; -, decrease in fluorescent sGFP expression;+and ++, increase in fluorescent sGFP expression. 2 working range is defined with no more than 20 decrease in fluorescent sGFP expression. At the indicated concentration limits, the analyzed chemicals have either no effect or a slight quenching effect of maximal 10 on sGFP fluorescence. 3 used as basic buffer compound. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056637.tand optimal concentration ranges were determined in between 20?8 mM depending on the S30 extract preparation. Reducing conditions could become important depending on the nature of the synthesized target proteins. DTT as reducing agent is tolerated in the reaction at least up to 10 mM final concentration while it could also be completely omitted 15755315 without significant effects. NH4+ ions were tolerated at least up to 30 mM final concentration (Fig. 1A). Protein expression increased with plasmid DNA template concentrations up to 2? ng/ml reaction and then remained at a relatively stable plateau. The DNA template concentration optimum appeared to be independent from the coding regions of sGFP or GNA1-sGFP (Fig. 1B). Mg2+ ions could interact with other negatively charged compounds of the reaction such as NTPs or PEP and correlated optimal concentration ranges were analyzed (Fig. 2). With the combination of NTP mix and Mg2+, optimal efficiency was determined within the range of 1? fold NTP mix and 20?6 mM Mg2+ (Fig. 2A). With the combination of PEP and Mg2+, optimal concentrations were ranging from 36?0 mM and 24?0 mM, respectively (Fig. 2B). After establishing reaction conditions, 1326631 the protein production in the CF batch reaction could be scaled up to at least 1 ml reaction volumes without loss of efficiency.transcription but rather reduced CF translation [18] and also different effects correlated with the PEG molecular weight on proteins are known [20]. However, systematic analysis of PEGs with different molecular weights in CF systems have not been made yet.Alcohols as CF AdditivesOrganic solvents are usually denaturizing by disrupting hydrophobic contacts in between the nonpolar side chains of amino acids. These effects are concentration dependent and some solvents such as alcohols or ketones can even act as protein stabilizers at lower concentrations while they convert to denat.
