See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227021616

Protein Content Quantification by Bradford Method

Chapter · January 2001

DOI: 10.1007/0-306-48057-3_19

CITATIONS READS

32 4,266

2 authors, including:

Nuria Pedrol
University of Vigo
92 PUBLICATIONS   609 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

maize drought tolerance View project

Others View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nuria Pedrol on 21 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CHAPTER 19

PROTEIN CONTENT QUANTIFICATION BY

BRADFORD METHOD

Nuria Pedrol Bonjoch and Pilar Ramos Tamayo

Depto Bioloxía Vexetal e Ciencia do Solo. Universidade de Vigo. Spain

THE BRADFORD METHOD

There are many procedures to quantify the protein content of an extract. A

single protein solution would probably throw different results if measured
with different methods, because they are based on different principles.
Actually an absolute method does not exist; everyone has some
advantages and disadvantages. The choice of an adequate method will
depend on the nature of the proteins present in the sample, on the purity of
the extracts, on the required sensibility and accuracy, and on the desired
speed (Boyer, 1986). The most widely utilised methods for the analysis of
protein contents are the assays of Biuret, Bradford, Kjendahl, Lowry,
Smith, and Warburg-Christian. Nonetheless, many authors recommend the
spectrophotometric assay of Bradford (1976) because of its multiple
advantages if compared with other methods (Snyder and Desborough,
1978; Berges et al., 1993; and see Bio-Rad bulletin 1069EG, 1979). The
most conspicuous advantages of Bradford method are: (i) the use of a
single reactive, (ii) the rapidity of the reaction (just 5 min.), (iii) a high
stability of the protein-dye complex, (iv) a high reproducibility, and (v)
the occurrence of minimal interferences.
This simple, fast, and inexpensive method has multiple applications
in experimental sciences. Besides being a well-suited method for
repetitive determination of protein concentrations (e.g., in physiological,
inmunological, cytological, clinical, and food quality routine analysis),
the Bradford assay is often coupled to other techniques. It is a convenient
283
M.J. Reigosa Roger, Handbook of Plant Ecophysiology Techniques, 283–295.
© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
284
means of monitoring column chromatography effluents and, due to the
relative insensitivity to interferences, it is a valuable method for analysing
fractions from affinity, ion exchange, gel and adsorption chromatography.
This protein assay provides a useful means of monitoring sample loads for
gel electrophoresis (see Chapter 20). The method also simplifies the
assessment of protein concentration during enzyme purification of
different tissues. Moreover, the Bradford assay is adaptable to
semiautomated methods of protein quantification (Bio-Rad bulletin
1069EG, 1979).

Chemical basis

The Bradford method (1976) is based on the absorbance shift observed in

an acidic solution of dye Coomassie® Brilliant Blue G-250. When added
to a solution of protein, the dye binds to the protein resulting in a colour
change from a reddish brown to blue. The dye has been assumed to bind
to protein via electrostatic attraction of the dye's sulfonic groups to the
protein. The bound points are primarily arginine residues, but the dye also
binds to a lesser degree to histidine, lysine, tyrosine, tryptophan and
phenylalanine (Compton and Jones, 1985). The peak absorbance of the
acidic dye solution changes from 465 to 595 nm when binding to protein
occurs. Therefore, measuring absorbance of the protein-dye complex at
595 nm allows an accurate quantification of the protein content of a
sample.
The binding of the dye to protein is a fast process, being virtually
completed in approximately 2 min. The protein-dye complex colour is
very stable; complexes keep dispersed in the solution for around 1 h. This
gives time enough to read a large number of samples, thus avoiding the
‘critical time of measurement’ of other methods (e.g., Lowry, 1951). After
1 h., complexes begin to aggregate, and the solution suffers a notorious
decrease in colour (Bradford, 1976).
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the bioassay, Bradford (1976)
assayed various proteins (bovine albumin, haemoglobin, cytochrome c,
etc.) and compared the results with those obtained from Lowry assays of
the same proteins. By calculation, she obtained that the dye binding assay
is approximately four times more sensitive than the Lowry assay. Besides
this, replicated Bradford assays of bovine serum albumin as a standard
resulted in a highly reproducible response pattern. Statistical analysis
gives a standard deviation around 1 % of mean value for the assay.
Moreover, there is a extreme sensitivity in the assay: a final assay volume
 285
containing solely 5 µg protein · will give an absorbance change of
about 0.27 optical density (OD) units.

Some helpful hints

When selecting a protein standard, the best choice would be a purified

preparation of interest, but it is not always possible. Commercial bovine
seroalbumin is generally used as standard because it gives a representative
colour response from which relative concentration values can be obtained.
Nonetheless, when determining protein concentrations of
immunoglobulins, commercial suppliers recommend the use of IgG
standards (Pierce Chemical Co. Bulletin, 1990).
The extinction coefficient of a dye-albumin complex solution is
constant over a 10-fold concentration range; thus, Beer's Law may be
applied for accurate quantification of protein by selecting an appropriate
ratio of dye volume to sample concentration. Over a broader range of
protein concentrations, the dye-binding method gives an accurate, but not
entirely linear response (Bio-Rad bulletin 1069EG, 1979). The source of
the nonlinearity is in the reagent itself since there is an overlap in the
spectrum of the two different colour forms of the dye. The background
value of the reagent is continually decreasing as more dye is bound to
protein. Nonetheless, there is no difficulty in obtain more accurate results
if the assay is run with a set of standards and unknowns measured against
the response curve of the standards, instead of calculated by Beer's Law
(Bradford, 1976).
The protein-free reagent ‘blank’ (sample buffer plus Bradford dye
reagent) will result in a reddish-brown solution with optical density (vs.
or sample buffer) characteristically about 0.45 OD units. The
relatively high colour yield of the blank is normal, and does not interfere
with the linearity, reproducibility, or sensitivity of the assay (Bio-Rad
Bulletin 1069EG, 1979).
As a general precaution, the use of strongly alkaline buffering agents
besides large quantities of detergents (greater than about 0.1 %) must be
avoided, because they cause some interference in the assay system.
Bradford (1976) observed a lack of effect by magnesium chloride,
potassium chloride, sodium chloride, ethanol, and ammonium sulphate.
Tris, acetic acid, 2-mercaptoethanol, sucrose, glycerol and EDTA, as well
as trace quantities of Triton X-100, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and
commercial glassware detergents, have solely small effects which can be
286
easily eliminated by running the proper buffer control with the assay.
Nevertheless, the presence of large quantities of the detergents produces
abnormalities too great to overcome. Reagents that are compatible with
the Bradford standard procedure are enumerated in Table 1.
 287
The Bradford protein assay is temperature dependent, therefore wide
fluctuations in temperature should be avoided (Pierce Chemical Co.
Bulletin, 1990).
Finally, it was observed a tendency of the protein-dye complex in
solution to bind to quartz cuvettes, although the error in assay readings
due to cuvette blueness is negligible (Bradford, 1976). Therefore, removal
of the residual blue colour between each sample reading is unnecessary.
After the assay, the residual coloration on quartz cuvettes can be easily
removed with methanol, acetone or HCl 0.1 M. This difficulty may be
eliminated by using, if possible, either glass or plastic cuvettes.

PLANT PROTEIN CONTENTS ARE AFFECTED BY

STRESS

When a plant is subjected to any biotic or abiotic stress factor, the first
observed response is a decrease in its normal metabolic activities, with a
consequent reduction of growth. In this ‘alarm phase’, protein synthesis is
one of the most negatively affected anabolic processes (Bohnert and
Jensen, 1996) together with photosynthesis, transport of metabolites, and
uptake and translocation of ions (Hsiao, 1973; Larcher, 1995;
Lichtenthaler, 1996).
Moreover, in those plants that possess only low or no stress tolerance
mechanisms, acute damage and senescence will occur rapidly. Besides
loss of chlorophyll, RubisCO and other chloroplast proteins are
hydrolysed and exported via phloem, followed by hydrolysis of
mitochondrial proteins and vascular tissues (Pell and Dann, 1991; Gan
and Amasino, 1997). Therefore, low protein concentrations should be
interpreted as a clear symptom of stress damage in plants.
However, in response to unfavourable conditions most plants will
activate their stress coping mechanisms such as acclimation of metabolic
fluxes, activation of repair processes, and long-term metabolic and
morphological adaptations, which conform the named general adaptation
syndrome (Lichtenthaler, 1996). Such mechanisms include de novo
synthesis of proteins with specific adaptive functions (i.e., stress proteins,
see Chapter 20), osmotic adjustment (e.g., proline accumulation, see
Chapter 22) and antioxidative defence (e.g., polyamines accumulation, see
Chapter 21), among others.
288
Further mechanisms include metabolic responses such as re-
adjustment of the metabolic fluxes and changes in biomass partitioning
(Lambers et al., 1998). Whatever the adaptive response, all of them carry
modifications in the levels and/or activities of many enzymes of multiple
metabolic pathways, which would be reflected in the total protein levels of
plants.
Besides the overexpression of specific stress-related genes, many
adaptive responses are time-dependent, so that they are solely shown up in
long-term acclimation to stress (Conroy et al., 1988; Amthor and McCree,
1990; Bray, 1993). Pankovic et al. (1999) proved that de novo synthesis of
RubisCO (see Chapter 23) made the major contribution to increases of
total leaf soluble protein induced by water deficit in tolerant sunflower
plants. RubisCO accumulation was observed even in full-expanded
mature leaves and was discussed as a symptom of photosynthetic
acclimation to stress. The progressive acclimation of seedlings to long-
term stress must be considered as an integrated plant response (Chapin,
1991; Shangguan et al., 1999). In such cases, the accumulation of soluble
proteins is usually accompanied by the maintenance of turgor through the
synthesis of compatible solutes (e.g., proline); both responses together
contribute to a high water and nitrogen use efficiency at the level of whole
plant (e.g., Ashraf and Yasmin 1995; Pedrol et al., 2000).
As a result of growth inhibition caused by stress the photosynthate is
usually diverted to storage of non-structural biomass, including organic
compounds such as proline and proteins (Amthor and McCree, 1990;
Setter, 1990). The accumulation of leaf soluble proteins may represent a
reserve of nitrogen to be used during recovery once stress has ceased
(Millard 1988, Stitt and Schulze 1994). Storage usually includes recycling
of nutrients, so that C and N can be remobilise from one tissue and
subsequently used for the growth or maintenance of another. Thus, an
increase of soluble proteins in young leaves can occur as a consequence of
N remobilization from senescent tissues, in which shares of metabolically
active proteins (mainly RubisCO) are implied. Recycling of N can also
occur as a consequence of root turnover (Chapin, 1980; Millard, 1988).
Phenotypic plasticity regarding biomass partitioning contributes
notably to success in changing environments where biotic and abiotic
stress factors are continually interacting (Austin, 1990; Dunson and
Travis, 1991; Aerts, 1999). Nitrogen storage confers multiple
ecophysiological advantages to plants, especially if considered in the
context of interspecific relationships (Aerts, 1999; Lemaire and Millard,
1999). Nitrogen storage will allow growth to occur when the external
availability of N is low, and will enable more rapid recovery from
 289
catastrophic events such as defoliation. The efficient internal cycling of C
and N within a plant through the processes of storage and remobilization
minimises the loss of resources from the individual (e.g., through leaf
litter) which otherwise would be available to competitors. Furthermore, a
rapid turnover of nutrients together with a high morphological plasticity
may also be important determinants of the competitive ability for light
interception (Wedin, 1994; Aerts, 1999).
Under the perspective of ecological strategies, fast-growing species
have generally higher leaf nitrogen concentrations (i.e., protein contents)
and higher levels of nitrogen use efficiency than the slow-growing ones.
Such characteristics determine the great competitive abilities of fast-
growing species in productive habitats (Lambers and Poorter, 1992; Aerts,
1999).

Whatever of the discussed features will affect the general metabolism of

nitrogen, including polyamine and proline metabolisms (see Chapters 21
and 22). The study of stress-induced changes in protein contents, together
with other ecophysiological parameters and stress metabolites would
throw much light in the integration of the whole plant responses to
multiple stress factors (Chapin et al., 1987; Chapin, 1991).

ANALYSING PROTEIN CONTENT IN PLANT

TISSUES BY BRADFORD METHOD

Now we will describe the basic steps for the analysis of protein contents
in different plant tissues, by means of the Bradford assay. The procedure
here proposed (summarised in Figure 1) is adequate to determine the
protein concentrations of young to mature leaves, cotyledons and/or fruit
tissue, among others.
Fresh plant material must be processed immediately after being
harvested, kept in refrigerator at 2 °C for 5-10 days, or kept in freezer at -
20 °C until extraction. For field or greenhouse bioassays, fresh masses of
the different tissues should be better collected when day-time
temperatures does not exceed 30 °C, considering proteins are
thermolabile; samples must kept at 0 to 4 °C (preferably on ice) during
collection. Particularly in comparative studies concerning stress, protein
contents are better to be measured in young actively growing leaves, or
fully expanded leaves that have been developed during stress exposure.
290

Preparation of reagents

Extraction solution

An appropriate solution or buffer to extract proteins from plat tissues can

be selected by consulting the pertinent literature, considering reagent
 291
composition is compatible to Bradford assay (see Table 1). Here we
propose the extraction buffer formulated by Arulsekar and Parfitt (1986),
which provides an optimal extraction of soluble proteins from different
plant tissues. It consists in a 0.05 M Tris buffer (pH 8.0) with the
following composition in distilled water:

Reactive: Concentration:
Tris base 0.05 M
ascorbic acid (Na salt or free acid) 0.1 % (w/V)
cysteine hydrochloride 0.1 % (w/V)
polyethylene glycol 3500 to 4000) 1 % (w/V)
citric acid (monohydrate) 0.15% (w/V)
2-mercaptoethanol 0.008 % (V/V)

This buffer can be used in a maximum period of 1 wk. after

preparation.

Standard solutions

A stock solution of commercial bovine serum albumin is prepared at the

concentration of in the same buffer as the protein
samples whose concentration is to be determined. Aliquots of the stock
solution can be stored at -20 °C and used whenever are needed.
The series of protein standard working solutions should cover the
range of concentration between 50 and 1500 · in which the
sample concentrations would be most often represented. Convenient
standard data points (prepared from successive dilutions of the stock in
the buffer) are 50, (100), 125, 250, (400), 500, 1000, (1500) and 2000

Bradford protein reagent

The Bradford protein reagent is prepared at the following concentrations

of its different components in distilled water (Bradford, 1976):

Reactive: Final concentration:

Coomassie® Brilliant Blue G-250 0.01 % (w/V)
Ethanol 95 % 4.7% (w/V)
Phosphoric acid 85 % (w/V) 8.5% (w/V)
292
As an example, to prepare 1 L of protein reagent, Coomassie®
Brilliant Blue G-250 (100 mg) is dissolved in 50 ml 95 % ethanol. To this
solution 100 ml 85 % (w/V) phosphoric acid is added. The resulting
solution is then diluted to a final volume of 1 L. The Bradford reagent has
a relatively long duration. Always mix reagent solution prior to use by
repeatedly inverting reagent bottle. Do not shake! Reagent solution will
foam if shaken vigorously.

Extraction procedure

A trial-and-error approach will be necessary to determine the ratio at

which extraction must be carried out. The required amount of plant
material will depend on the water content of each tissue and species.
Different extraction procedures usually include centrifugation or filtration
to remove particulate matter in the sample. Our proposed extraction
procedure (Pedrol, 1997; Pedrol et al., 2000) is carried out as follows (see
Fig. 1):
Samples of plant material are powdered with liquid nitrogen, using
precooled mortars and pestles. Proteins are extracted by homogenising in
the described cold 0.05 M Tris buffer (Arulsekar and Parfitt, 1986), at a
ratio of 100 to 300 mg fresh mass · buffer. A small quantity (e.g.,
0.05 g) of the antioxidant polyvinyl polypyrollidone (PVPP) is added to
each sample during the homogenisation procedure. Homogenates are
transferred to cold centrifuge tubes (e.g., 2 ml Eppendorf tubes) and
centrifuged at 14,000 to 19,000 for 20 min. at 4 °C.
Sample tubes must be kept on ice and closed until centrifugation, in
order to prevent oxidation. After centrifugation, clear supernatants can be
used immediately for the protein assay, or frozen at -20 °C and used later.

Protein-dye binding reaction

0.1 ml of each sample supernatant and working standard solution are

transferred to assay tubes (e.g., 16 × 100 mm test tubes). A blank
containing 0.1 ml extraction buffer must be also prepared. Then, 3 ml of
the Bradford reagent (containing the dye) are added to each tube. The
tubes are softly vortexed or mixed by gentle inversion to prevent the
generation of foam in the sample, which would reduce significantly the
colour yields (Bio-Rad Bulletin 1069EG, 1979).
 293

Absorbance measurement and quantification

The absorbance at 595 nm (vs. the blank) is measured

spectrophotometrically after 5 min and before 1 h., taking into account the
stability of the protein-dye complex.
The net absorbances at 595 nm for each albumin standard are
subjected to regression analysis (known concentration vs. absorbance).
The protein concentration for each unknown sample (expressed in
is calculated by the resulting equation. Final protein concentrations of
samples in (fresh mass) are determined taking into account the
different dilutions made during the extraction procedure.
Fresh masses will vary with different growing conditions (e.g., stressed
vs. unstressed), thus protein contents are recommended to be expressed in
relation to dry mass, previous calculation of dry mass/fresh mass ratio for
each sample.

Finally, in some cases, we will observe that the protein concentration of

the sample is too dilute for the described standard assay, being in the
range of 1 to 25 (e.g., phytoplankton samples, Berges et al.,
1993). Then, a micro-assay procedure can be performed as follows: The
protein standard series would cover the range of concentration, being
convenient standard points 1,5, 10, 15 and 25 Take 0.5 to 1 ml
(instead of 0.1 ml) of dilute standard or unknown protein sample, and add
1 ml (instead of 3 ml) of Bradford reagent. Further steps are equal to
standard procedure.

REFERENCES
Aerts R. Interespecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade-offs and
plant-soil feedbacks. J Exp Bot 1999; 50:29-37
Amthor J.S., McCree K.J. “Carbon Balance of Stressed Plants: A Conceptual Model for
Integrating Research Results.” In Stress Responses in Plants: Adaptation and
Acclimation Mechanisms. R.G. Alscher, J.R. Cumming, eds. New York: Wiley-Liss Inc.
Publishers, 1990
Arulsekar S., Parfitt D.E. Isozyme analysis procedures for stone fruits, almond, grape, walnut,
pistachio, and fig. Hortscience 1986; 21:928-933
Ashraf M., Yasmin N. Responses of 4 arid zone grass species from varying habitats to drought
stress. Biol Plantarum 1995; 37:567-575
294
Austin M.P. “Community Theory and Competition in Vegetation.” In Perspectives on Plant
Competition. J.B. Grace, D. Tilman, eds. San Diego: Academic Press, 1990
Berges J.A., Fisher A.E., Harrison P.J. A comparison of Lowry, Bradford and Smith protein
assays using different protein standards and protein isolated from the marine diatom
Thalassiosira pseudonana. Mar Biol 1993; 115:187-193
Bohnert H.J., Jensen R.G. Metabolic engineering for increased salt tolerance - the next
step. Aust J Plant Physiol 1996; 23:661-667
Boyer R.F. Modern Experimental Biochemistry. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co., 1986
Bradford M.M. A rapid sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of
protein utilising the principle of protein-Dye Binding. Anal Biochem 1976; 72:248-254
Bray E.A. Molecular responses to water deficit. Plant Physiol 1993; 103:1035-1040
Chapin III F.S. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1980; 11:233-
260
Chapin III F.S., Bloom A.J., Field C.B., Waring R.H. Plant responses to multiple
environmental factors. BioScience 1987; 37:49-57
Chapin III F.S. Integrated responses of plants to stress. BioScience 1991; 41:29-36
Compton S.J., Jones C.G. Mechanisms of dye response and interference in the Bradford
protein assay. Anal Biochem 1985; 151:369-374
Conroy J.P., Virgona J.M., Smillie R.M., Barlow E.W. Influence of drought acclimation and
enrichment on osmotic adjustment and chlorophyll a fluorescence of sunflower
during drought. Plant Physiol 1988; 86:1108-1115
Dunson W.A., Travis J. The role of abiotic factors in community organization. Am Nat
1991; 138:1067-1091
Gan S., Amasino R.M. Making sense of senescence. Plant Physiol 1997; 113:313-319
Hsiao T.C. Plant responses to water stress. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 1973; 24:519-570
Lambers H., Poorter H. Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: a search
for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Adv Ecol Res 1992; 23:187-261
Lambers H., Chapin III F.S., Pons T.L. Plant Physiological Ecology. New York: Springer-
Verlang, 1998
Larcher W. Physiological Plant Ecology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1995
Lemaire G., Millard P. An ecophysiological approach to modelling resource fluxes in
competing plants. J Exp Bot 1999; 50:15-28
Lichtenthaler H.K. Vegetation stress: An introduction to the stress concept in plants. J
Plant Physiol 1996; 148:4-14
Lowry O.H., Rosebrough N.J., Farr A.L., Randall R.J. Protein measurement with Folin-phenol
reagent. J Biol Chem 1951; 193:265-275
Millard P. The accumulation and storage of nitrogen by herbaceous plants. Plant Cell
Environ 1988; 11:1-8
 295
Pankovic D., Sakac Z., Kevresan S., Plesnicar M. Acclimation to long-term water deficit in
the leaves of two sunflower hybrids: photosynthesis, electron transport and carbon
metabolism. J Exp Bot 1999; 50:127-138
Pedrol N. “Analítica de proteínas totales por colorimetría.” In Manual de Técnicas en
Ecofisiología Vegetal. N. Pedrol, M.J. Reigosa, eds. Vigo, Spain: Gamesal, 1997
Pedrol N., Ramos P., Reigosa M.J. Phenotypic plasticity and acclimation to water deficits
in velvet-grass: a long-term greenhouse experiment. Changes in leaf morphology,
photosynthesis and stress-induced metabolites. J Plant Physiol 2000; 157:383-393
Pell E.J., Dann M.S. “Multiple Stress-induced Foliar Senescence and Implications for Whole-
plant Longevity.” In Response of Plants to Multiple Stresses. H. A. Mooney, W.E. Winner,
E.J. Pell, eds. San Diego: Academic Press, 1991
Setter T.L. “Transport/Harvest Index: Photosyntate Partitioning in Stressed Plants.” In Stress
Responses in Plants: Adaptation and Acclimation Mechanisms. R.G. Alscher, J.R.
Cumming, eds. New York: Wiley-Liss Inc., 1990
Shangguan Z., Shao M., Dyckmans J. Interaction of osmotic adjustment and
photosynthesis in winter wheat under soil drought. J Plant Physiol 1999; 154:753-758
Snyder J.C., Desborough S.L. Rapid estimation of potato tuber total protein content with
Coomassie brillant blue G-250. Theor Appl Genet 1978; 52:135-139
Stitt M., Schulze D. Does Rubisco control the rate of photosynthesis and plant growth? An
exercise in molecular ecophysiology. Plant Cell Environ 1994; 17:465-487
Wedin D.A. “Species, Nitrogen and Grassland Dynamics: the Constraints of Stuff.” In
Linking Species and Ecosystems. C. Jones, J.H. Lawton, eds. New York: Chapman and
Hall, 1994

View publication stats