First piece of advice I have is to shove them in the beam and see what
happens. A few days ago we got high-resolution data from crystals that are
shaped like eggs. No edges on them whatsoever. In the past, saucer-shaped
crystals diffracted to 2A whereas their hexagonal 'perfect' cousins (grown
from a different PEG, if memory serves) had Cheeseburger-strength
diffraction.

Secondly, if ordinary optimization attempts repeatedly fail, it may be time
for protein optimization, e.g. proteolysis, mutagenesis, methylation and so
forth :)

Artem

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Matthew Bratkowski <[email protected]>wrote:

> Hello.
>
> I have obtained disk shaped crystals of a protein that I am working on.  I
> got hits in about 10 different conditions, with a few common precipitants
> and pHs, and I have optimized two conditions so far.  In the optimized
> conditions, the crystals appear overnight, usually surrounded by or hiding
> under heavy precipitant. Under the best conditions, I get what I would
> describe as single disks, some of which are of decent size and very round,
> that rotate light very well.  Sub-optimal conditions can give small to large
> crystal clusters.  I shot the large disk crystals grown from one conditions
> at the synchrotron. but they do not diffract.
>
> I was wondering if anyone had any advice about optimizing these crystals in
> order to get them to diffract better?  As mentioned before, I have only
> tried optimizing a few of the hit conditions (varying precipitant conc., pH,
> etc.), but crystals from all of the hits look the same: always round disks
> or disk clusters.  This leads me to believe that optimized conditions of the
> other hits will produce similar results as before.  Would it be worthwhile
> to try optimizing these conditions as well?  I have also tried seeding,
> which just produces a lot of clusters, and an additive screen.  Some of the
> additives help to produce larger crystals, but again I always get single or
> disk clusters.
>
> Any advice would be helpful.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
>

Reply via email to