768 19. Preparation of Hapten–Carrier Immunogen Conjugates
A disadvantage to using SMCC or other NHS–maleimide type crosslinkers with hindered
ring structures (such as MBS) is the relatively high immunogenicity of the cross-bridge. Studies
have shown that a hapten–carrier complex formed from such crosslinkers generates signifi cant
antibody response against the spacer group itself, not just the hapten and carrier. To minimize
the antibody population directed against the cross-bridge of the conjugate, the use of aliphatic
straight-chain spacers will exhibit lower immunogenicity (Peeters et al., 1989). However, per-
haps a better choice for this type of conjugation is a polyethylene glycol (PEG) based crosslinker
containing an NHS ester on one end and a maleimide group on the other end (see Chapter 18,
Section 2). A PEG group used as a cross-bridge in a heterobifunctional reagent to prepare
immunogen conjugates will result in non-immunogenic modifi cations on the carrier protein and
thus no antibody production against the polyether linker. Although SMCC (or sulfo-SMCC)
is used in the following protocol, direct substitution of a PEG-based crosslinker will limit the
immune response to the hapten, and not generate unwanted antibodies to the cross-bridge.
Since many peptides do not naturally contain cysteine residues with free sulfhydryls, a terminal
cysteine may be incorporated during peptide synthesis, or where appropriate, disulfi de groups
may be reduced to generate them. Alternatively, thiolating reagents such as 2-iminothiolane
(Traut ’s reagent) can be used to modify existing amino groups and introduce a sulfhydryl (see
section 1.1.4.1). Caution must be taken when using this last technique, however, because mul-
tiple sites of modifi cation may alter the immunogenic structure of the hapten.
If a terminal cysteine residue is added to a peptide during its synthesis, its sulfhydryl group
provides a highly specifi c conjugation site for reacting with a sulfo-SMCC-activated carrier. All
peptide molecules coupled using this approach will display the same basic conformation after
conjugation. In other words, they will have a known and predictable orientation, leaving the
majority of the molecule free to interact with the immune system. This method therefore can
preserve the major epitopes on a peptide while still enhancing the immune response to the hap-
ten by being covalently linked to a larger carrier protein. In addition, the well-known chemical
reactivity of a sulfo-SMCC-mediated immunogen preparation permits covalent conjugation in
a controllable fashion that can be highly defi ned for quality assurance purposes.
The process of carrier activation by sulfo-SMCC may be followed by performing a simple
purifi cation step after the reaction using a desalting resin. Figure 19.18 shows the gel fi ltration
profi les for the separation of sulfo-SMCC-activated BSA and OVA. The fi rst peak of both sepa-
rations represents the elution point for the carrier protein, while the absorbance due to reaction
by-products of the crosslinker is contained in the second peak (shown only as its leading edge).
Activated proteins exhibit an increase in their absorbance at 280 nm over an identical sample
with no added sulfo-SMCC due to their covalently attached maleimide groups. After isolation,
the activated protein may be frozen and lyophilized to preserve maleimide coupling activity
toward sulfhydryl-containing haptens. Thermo Fisher sells a number of maleimide-activated
carrier proteins in lyophilized form for easy hapten conjugation.
After a carrier protein has been activated with sulfo-SMCC, it is often useful to measure
the degree of maleimide incorporation prior to coupling an expensive hapten. Ellman ’s reagent
may be used in an indirect method to assess the level of maleimide activity of sulfo-SMCC-
activated proteins and other carriers. First, a sulfhydryl-containing compound such as
2-mercaptoethanol or cysteine is reacted in excess with the activated protein. The amount of
unreacted sulfhydryls remaining in solution is then determined using the Ellman ’s reaction
(Chapter 1, Section 4.1). Comparison of the response of the sample to a blank reaction using