Some parameters can be improved BUT the real bottlenecks of the field are in 1. Getting a target soluble at a high concentration. 2. Getting crystals AT ALL. 3. Getting decent diffraction data that then lead hopefully to structure solution.
No 1 and 2 are the most critical. Space crystallisation does not overcome either of those. Jan On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Jack Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: > TITLE: "Extracting trends from two decades of microgravity macromolecular > crystallization history" (2005) (Judge, Snell and van der Woerd). > > "Significant enhancements in structural knowledge have resulted from X-ray > diffraction of the crystals grown . . . in the reduced acceleration > environnments of an orbiting spacecraft." > > > TITLE: "Macromolecular Crystallization in Microgravity Generated by a > Superconducting Magnet" (2006) (Wakayama, Yin, Harata, Kiyoshi, Fujiwara and > Tanimoto). > > "About 30% of the protein crystals grown in space yield better X-ray > diffraction data than the best crystals grown on the earth." > > > TITLE: "The crystallization of biological macromolecules under microgravity: > a way to more accurate three-dimensional structures?" (2002) (Lorber). > > "The crystallization of proteins . . . in a microgravity environment can > produce crystals having lesser defects than crystals prepared under normal > gravity on earth. Such microgravity-grown crystals can diffract X-rays to a > higher resolution and have a lower mosaic spread." > > > TITLE: "Protein crystal growth on board Shenzhou 3: a concerted effort > improves crystal diffraction quality and facilitates structure > determination." (2004) (Han, Cang, Zhou, Wang, Bi, Colelesage, Delbaere, > Nahoum, Shi, Zhou, Zhue and Lin) > > ". . . careful and concerted planning at all stages made it possible to > obtain crystals of improved quality compared to their ground controls for > some of the proteins. Significantly improved resolutions were obtained from > diffracted crystals of 4 proteins. A complete data set from a space crystal > of the PEP carboxykinase yielded significantly higher resolution, and a lower > average temperature factor than the best ground-based control crystal." > > > TITLE: "JAXA-GCF project - High-quality protein crystals grown under > microgravity environment for better understand of protein structure." (2006). > (Sato, Tanaka, Inaka, Shinozaki, Yamanaka, Takahashi, Yamanaka, Hirota, > Sugiyama, Kato, Saito, Sano, Motohara, Nakamura, Kobayashi, and Yoshitomi.) > > "JAXA has developed technologies for growing, in microgravity, high-quality > protein crystals, which may diffract up to atomic resolution, for a better > understanding of 3-dimensional rpotein structures through X-ray diffraction > experiments." > > > TITLE: "A Comparison between Simulations and Experiments for Microgravity > Crystal Growth in Gradient Magnetic Fields." (2008). (Poodt, et al.). > > "Microgravity protein crystal growth is expected to lead to an improvement of > protein crystal quality, compared to crystals grown under normal gravity, due > to the suppression of buoyancy driven convection. This is highly relevant, > because for protein structure determination by X-ray diffraction, protein > crystallization is often the quality limiting step." > > > TITLE: "Macromolecular crystallization in microgravity." (2005) (Snell and > Helliwell). > > "Density difference fluid flows and sedimentation of growing crystals are > greatly reduced when crystallization takes place in a reduced gravity > environment." > > > TITLE: "Comparison of space- and ground-grown Bi2Se.21Te2.79 thermoelectric > crystals." (2010). (Zhou, et al.) > > "The compositions of the space crystal grown along growth direction were more > homogeneous than that of the ground crystal grown. The crystallization of > space crystal grown was obviously improved." > > > That's just a handful of quotes from a few of the sources I have accumulated > over the last few months. I guess this all boils down to your definition of > "significantly improved crystals." > > Is there something wrong with these sources? Am I misunderstanding their > findings? > > Jack > > > --- On Sun, 5/9/10, Dunten, Pete W. <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> "significantly improved crystals " I >> wasn't aware that was an accepted generalization, born out >> by the experiments already conducted. >> Can you cite a number of cases? >> >> Another issue for pharma would be the timeline. >> Chemistry programs move pretty fast, and if the xray >> crystallographers don't keep up, >> they aren't very useful. >> >> Pete >> ________________________________________ >> From: CCP4 bulletin board [[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Jack Reynolds [[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:26 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [ccp4bb] Clarification and another question . . . >> >> --- On Sun, 5/9/10, Klaus Fütterer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Dear Jack, >> > >> > I believe your venture would enter a mature market, >> and, if >> > you were to offer growing growing crystals in >> microgravity, >> > a market characterised by very high costs and >> (presumably) >> > very low margins. >> >> I wouldn't offer crystal growth, I would offer access to >> the data from x-ray diffraction of space-grown crystals. Is >> the data from significantly improved crystals not a valuable >> commodity? >> >> If the pharmaceutical industry (and other researchers, for >> that matter) could grow crystals in space, and extract >> critical data from the x-ray diffraction of these >> space-grown crystals (in space); AND >> >> if costs could be reduced by 30-50%; AND >> >> if the end-product is the data, not the crystals . . . >> >> do you still think (profit) margins would be nominal? >> >> Is your assessment of "very low margins" based on assumed >> "very high costs?" >> >> Jack >> > -- Jan Dohnalek, Ph.D Institute of Macromolecular Chemistry Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Heyrovskeho nam. 2 16206 Praha 6 Czech Republic Tel: +420 296 809 390 Fax: +420 296 809 410
