As a chromatographic technique, IMAC offers the advantages of providing favorable and precise attachment, mild elution conditions, and the potential to monitor the selectivity by using low imidazole concentrations in chromatographic buffers [
45]. The general purification process is simply illustrated in
Figure 6. Those recombinant protein fused with tag can be purified by specific support resin in a column. For example, the construct of His6-insulin can be selectively purified by the Ni-NTA Agrose resin column. A broad variety of popular resins with different binding modes and abilities are available. However, all resins require difficult cleaning procedures. High-performance liquid chromatography can combine most purification steps; the most commonly utilized instruments are the ÄKTA systems from GE Healthcare [
19]. The final quality of the protein can be controlled by monitoring the proportion of the recombinant protein with respect to the scale of the column; pollutants with lower affinity can interact with a greater abundance of the recombinant protein labeled with histidine. It is also useful to evaluate the sum of the soluble target protein to be loaded onto the board, which can be inferred from small-scale expression studies [
151]. As a general rule, to optimize purity, the column is loaded with a small excess of the amount required to achieve the expected binding capability. While not mandatory, the implementation of such protein purification protocols with automated chromatography systems is reasonably straightforward, which has proven to be reliable, successful, and easy to use [
21,
152]. Protein and peptide affinity tags are widely used for the purification of recombinant proteins and native protein complexes. First, they offer 100- to 1000-fold purification of crude extracts without the need for undertaking any previous measures to eliminate nucleic acid or other cellular materials [
153]. Secondly, the mild elution conditions allow the use of affinity tags valuable for purifying individual proteins, particularly complex proteins. Lastly, affinity tags permit the purification of diverse proteins using generic protocols as opposed to highly specialized procedures associated with traditional chromatography, compelling consideration for proteomics or structural genomics [
1,
154]. Most of the proteins and peptide affinity tags available have been produced during the last 20 years and can be divided into three groups based on the type of the affinity tag and its target: The first class includes epitope affinity tags used for peptide or protein fusion to tiny molecular ligands linked with a strong connection [
155]. The hexa-histidine tag, for example, binds to an immobilized metal, while glutathione S-transferase protein fusions bind to glutathione that is bound to chromatographic resin [
156]. The second class of affinity tags includes peptide tags that attach to an immobilized protein-binding partner on the chromatographic resin. For example, the calmodulin-binding peptide binds specifically to calmodulin, which allows the purification of proteins fused to the peptide that is attached to the calmodulin resin. The third type of epitope affinity tags may be classified in the second category, in which the protein-binding partner bound to the resin is an antibody that identifies a specific epitope of the peptide. Examples include the FLAG peptide for which an anti-FLAG antibody resin can be used. Such an abundant range of affinity tags for protein purification will render it challenging for a specific project to agree on the most suitable tag. While several, if not most, recombinant proteins are now processed and purified using affinity tags, just two to three tags have been compared in the few experiments testing affinity tags for protein purification. Thus, affinity tags are usually chosen depending on qualitative knowledge. To resolve this absence of a standardized analysis for affinity tags, we have previously measured the quality, yield, and expense by using two protein fusion and six short peptide affinity tags to purify two
E. coli-expressed proteins [
50]. We evaluated the capacity of the affinity resins to purify labeled proteins from extracts derived from yeast,
Drosophila, and HeLa cells. Our tests, which demonstrate that the affinity tags are markedly different with respect to the efficacy of purification, offer a more robust foundation for choosing affinity tags. Several proteins and peptide affinity tags are now accessible that help distinguish proteins, which are expressed in a heterologous host, such as
E. coli, or the purification by a labeled subunit of native complexes. In general, an ideal affinity tag exhibits the following properties and functions: (i) Enables the efficient purification of high-yield labeled proteins, (ii) can be used for any protein without disrupting its functions, (iii) can be positioned at any location in the protein (N-terminal, center, and C-terminal), (iv) can be used to purify protein produced in all host strains or expression methods, (v) can be used for the identification of recombinant proteins, and (vi) has resin attachments and elutes that are cheap, can be regenerated, and have strong flow properties. Notably, many affinity tags are available commercially that meet several, if not many, of those requirements. We analyzed two proteins and six peptide affinity tags, which met all of the above criteria, to purify recombinant proteins expressed in
E. coli for their effectiveness [
157]. We studied a subset of the capacity of such tags to purify proteins from three samples of eukaryotic cells. Our results report different purities of the derived proteins. We noted that epitope peptide tags, such as the FLAG peptide, yield the maximum-quality protein in
E. coli, both for well-behaved and un-behaved polypeptides. Compounds derived from the bacteria, yeast,
Drosophila, and HeLa include tags, such as the TAP tag involving the CBP peptide, which is widely used for the isolation of “normal” protein complexes, and the commonly used HIS tag that generates proteins with several contaminants. The Strep II (STR) tag was remarkably successful, delivering protein reliably and nearly as pure as epitope-based systems. By the purification of the affinity tag, we obtained fair yields of relatively high-purity DHFR. The truncated yeast polypeptide Gcn5 was extracted with a relatively weak purity and in small or virtually no quantity. Thus, while the purification by affinity tags allows for the use of general purification protocols that do not rely on the quality of the protein being purified, unfavorable properties of proteins, such as aggregation, can still affect affinity tag purification experiments [
118,
158]. Notably, the solubility of a recombinant protein is a minimum prerequisite for correctly folded nonmembrane proteins [
159]. Soluble extracts that contain tiny aggregates of the labeled protein are not pelleted when centrifuged. Although these non-specific aggregates mask the affinity tag, as observed with the labeled Gcn5 polypeptides, resulting in the labeled protein being soluble and yet unable to attach to the affinity resin. Cost may be a critical parameter, in addition to purity and yield, when selecting affinity tags and resins, particularly for preparatory purification. We measured the cost of purifying 10 mg of a 30-kDa polypeptide using retail cost and resin efficiency details given by the distributors, to evaluate the price of different affinity resins. The columns MBP, Talon, Ni–NTA, and GST were the least costly, with resins costing
$12–36 to purify the labeled polypeptide by 10 mg. To purify 10 mg of marked polypeptide, calmodulin (for CBP tag) and Strep-Tactin (for Strep II tag) were notably costlier at
$114–293. The FLAG and HPC monoclonal resins are especially costly at
$1000–5000 for the same volume of marked polypeptide due to their large unit resin cost and relatively small capacity (0.6 mg FLAG marked protein/mL resin versus 5–10 mg HIS tagged protein/mL resin) [
115,
160,
161,
162]. Choosing an attraction suffix specifically depends upon the criteria of the experiment. Experiments requiring large amounts of partly distilled content at a low cost might consider the HIS and GST tags, while experiments requiring small quantities with the maximum purity might consider the FLAG and HPC tags to overshadow their costs and minimal ability [
107,
163]. The Strep II tag appears to be an excellent candidate for affinity purification in general, as it is a short tag that produces high-purity proteins at a moderate cost with reasonable yields. One drawback attached to the use of the Strep II tag for protein crystallization in purifying proteins is that it interferes with the crystallization of a specific enzyme. This interference is not observed with the HIS or FLAG tags. Given that certain proteins have been successfully crystallized with the Strep II tag, it is not clear whether this tag adversely affects protein crystallization. These findings highlight the need for further comprehensive research examining the influence of protein crystallization by affinity tags. We consider that a mixture of HIS and Strep II tags enables rapid capturing of the tagged protein or protein complex from rough extracts by the Talon column, accompanied by polishing over the Strep-Tactin column. To promote the usage of the tags analyzed in this review, we prepared a suite of expression vectors that include the tags HIS, CBP, STR, FLAG, HPC, and CYD as single or double cleavable and non-cleavable tags for the production of individual polypeptides and polycistronic production of protein complexes in
E. coli. We hope that our comprehensive study of affinity tags can help us make better choices for the purification of proteins. Comparing different tags utilizing a similar target protein has important benefits, and we recommend testing the potential affinity tags using DHFR in the future to enable clear comparisons with current tags. The knowledge presented in this study can also help to create new, smaller tandem affinity purification (TAP) tags as alternatives to the common combination of A–CBP proteins. X-ray crystallography of integral membrane proteins is difficult, as it needs significant expenditure of time and energy to locate a membrane protein that will produce diffraction-quality crystals. Nonetheless, we have shown that unproductive large-scale protein expression and purification can be reduced by the fluorescence-detection size-exclusion chromatography (FSEC), a fast pre-crystallization screening process in which mono-dispersion and goal protein stability are defined with only nanograms of unpurified protein. In this step, the target protein is fused covalently to GFP, and SEC analyzes the resulting unpurified fusion protein. While the GFP fusion technique was previously used to track the production of bacterial membrane proteins and screen detergents used for solubilization, our understanding of the use of the covalent GFP fusion and SEC techniques to examine mono-dispersiveness and fusion protein stability for protein crystallization is novel. In addition, pre-crystallization screening based on FSEC can be used with the previously mentioned GFP fusion method to develop cell lines with high levels of expression of promising constructs. In this review, the advantages and importance of covalent GFP fusion proteins and FSEC pre-crystallization screening with eukaryotic and prokaryotic membrane proteins have been illustrated. In such tests, small quantities of unpurified target membrane proteins were tested rapidly and easily for the extent of the position and expression, degree of mono-dispersity, average molecular mass, and detergent stability. In this analysis, size exclusion chromatography (SEC) was used instead of gel permeation, gel filtration, steric exclusion, exclusion, or gel chromatography. SEC is an entropically regulated separation strategy that relies on the relative size of a macromolecule or the hydrodynamic volume over the average pore size of the packaging. Importantly, SEC is a relative technique that involves column calibration to evaluate statistical average molecular weights and the distribution of polymers by molecular weight [
101]. Absolute molecular weight measurements are therefore feasible with either an electronic light scattering device or a widely controlled on-line viscometer. The molecular conformation of these detectors and long-chain branching may also be evaluated by these methods. Along with the ability to examine molecular parameters, SEC is often useful for the preparatory fractionation of polymers and the isolation of small molecules from large polymeric or biogenic matrices during sample cleaning [
164,
165]. SEC is a standard and well-accepted methodology by which organic polymers and biopolymers are characterized. We have observed a higher usage of high-performance columns than traditional soft-gel packaging in life sciences. Owing to their speed and high resolution, high-performance columns are still preferred. Both silica- and organic-based packaging are used for aqueous SEC. Silica-based packaging tends to be favored for quality management and monitoring due to better performance (smaller particle size), shorter testing period, and more durable nature than organic-based packaging. Nevertheless, unintended contact during the labeling of solvents is a huge concern. Polystyrene gels are the choice of packaging for organo-soluble polymers. In this analysis phase, less attention is given to the theoretical aspects of SEC, including band extension, and the implementations are more heavily focused on the usage of electronic light-scattering detectors and viscometers. With these molecular weight-sensitive detectors, branching, molecular scale, and conformation can now be evaluated as a feature of molecular weight in one continuous experiment. Together with a concentration-sensitive detector, the usage of any such detector has significantly increased the sensitivity and precision of these tests.