AbstractElastin‐like polypeptide (ELP) fusions have been designed to allow large‐scale, nonchromatographic purification of many soluble proteins by using the inverse transition cycling (ITC) method; however, the sensitivity of the aqueous lower critical solubility phase transition temperature (Tt) of ELPs to the addition of cosolutes, including detergents, may be a potential hindrance in purification of proteins with surface hydrophobicity in such a manner. To identify detergents that are known to solubilize such proteins (e.g., membrane proteins) and that have little effect on the Tt of the ELP, we screened a number of detergents with respect to their effects on the Tt and secondary structures of a model ELP (denoted here as ELP180). We found that mild detergents (e.g., n‐dodecyl‐β‐D‐maltoside, Triton‐X100, and 3‐[(3‐cholamidopropyl) dimethylamino]‐1‐propanesulfonate) do not alter the phase transition behavior or structure (as probed by circular dichroism) of ELP180. This result is in contrast to previous studies that showed a strong effect of other detergents (e.g., sodium dodecylsulfate) on the Tt of ELPs. Our results clearly indicate that mild detergents do not preclude ITC‐based separation of ELPs, and thus that ELP fusions may prove to be useful in the purification of detergent‐solubilized recombinant hydrophobic proteins, including membrane proteins, which are otherwise notoriously difficult to extract and purify by conventional separation methods (e.g., chromatography). © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.