Re: [ccp4bb] SUMMARY: Poor diffraction of eukaryotic membrane protein crystals

2009-02-12 Thread Damon Colbert
On request, this summary (slightly amended) has been posted to the CPP4 wiki 
Crystal Growth page.

You can find it here:  
http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/ccp4wiki/index.php/Improving_crystal_quality

Regards,
Damon.


Damon Colbert schrieb:

 Thanks to everyone who responded with most helpful advice and
 suggestions.  I have provided a summary of the suggestions (and
 clarifications to questions asked of me in return).

 Perma-Link to original question:
 _https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=CCP4BB;AJMLIg;20090205
 170801%2B1300_
 __


 * Concentrate protein with a higher molecular weight cutoff (e.g.
   50-100 kDa).

 * Protein is known to form a tetramer, and by approximation from gel
   filtration elution, exists as a 126 kDa species (~114 kDa tetramer
   and ~22 kDa OG micelle).  It usually elutes as a single,
   well-resolved peak (unless, for example, I am using it to exchange
   detergent).  DLS has shown monodispersity in samples, but I don't
   use it routinely.



 * Dialyse protein overnight (routinely or after centrifugal
   concentration) to reduce and define the detergent concentration.

 * This can get expensive, using relatively large volumes detergent
   to make the dialysis buffer.  Nonetheless the most recent crystals
   were obtained from dialysed protein.



 * Trial extraction, purification, and crystallisation with different
   detergents (using desalting or Q-sepharose columns).  Poor
   diffraction could be indicative of detergent-mediated crystal
   contacts (rather than protein-protein).

 * Use of shorter detergents (e.g. Cymal-3 to -6) or mixed detergent
   micelles
 * Reconstruct sparse matrix screens with each different detergent
 * See Lemieux /et al/. (2003), Protein Science.



 * Identify membrane lipids associated with protein (in-house by TLC
   or otherwise).  Retaining some native lipid or adding it back in
   at crystallization may improve crystal quality.  Conversely total
   delipidation may also help.

 * Need to correlate successful crystallisation with presence/absence
   of lipid
 * Could try using lipid-like detergents (FC or DHPC)



 * Deglycosylation is checked on SDS-PAGE, and confirmed by the loss
   of higher molecular weight smears (which are present before
   deglycosylation reaction).

 * Alternatively protein could be digested with Endolgycosidase H,
   which leaves one GlcNac residue on each glycosylation site.  This
   could improve crystal contacts.  See Chang, V.T. /et al/. (2007)
   Glycoprotein structural genomics: solving the glycosylation
   problem.   Structure 15(3):267-73



 * Chemical modification of surface residues may improve crystal
   contacts, for example lysine methylation.

 * See Walter /et al/. (2006) Lysine methylation as a routine rescue
   strategy for protein crystallization. Structure 14(11):1617-22
 * Mutagenesis is another alternative, but we have not yet been
   successful producing a recombinant protein.



 * Adding salt (or PEG) to reservoir solution may promote crystal
   growth in the aqueous phase, rather than the 'oil/gel' phase.

 * Conditions producing the crystals grown in this 'gel' had PEG 1K
   or 2K as precipitant, and low [NaCl] present. (Is the suggestion
   'to increase the concentration beyond that of the reservoir
   solution?').



 * Test crystallisation conditions at low temperature (e.g. 4°C)



 * Test oils (paraffin or paraton-N) as cryoprotectants.
   Alternatively maintain detergent concentration in cryoprotectant.

 * Paratone oil (softened with some mineral oil) was used with poorly
   diffracting native crystals, and showed no improvement in
   diffraction.  It has not been attempted with more recent protein
   crystals grown in presence of ligand.



 * Attempt to collect a 10Ang dataset and try MR with a close homolog.



 Many thanks.

 Regards,
 Damon.


[ccp4bb] SUMMARY: Poor diffraction of eukaryotic membrane protein crystals

2009-02-11 Thread Damon Colbert

Thanks to everyone who responded with most helpful advice and suggestions.  I 
have provided a summary of the suggestions (and clarifications to questions 
asked of me in return).

Perma-Link to original question:  
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=CCP4BB;AJMLIg;20090205170801%2B1300
__

·   Concentrate protein with a higher molecular weight cutoff (e.g. 50-100 
kDa).
·   Protein is known to form a tetramer, and by approximation from gel 
filtration elution, exists as a 126 kDa species (~114 kDa tetramer and ~22 kDa 
OG micelle).  It usually elutes as a single, well-resolved peak (unless, for 
example, I am using it to exchange detergent).  DLS has shown monodispersity in 
samples, but I don't use it routinely.

·   Dialyse protein overnight (routinely or after centrifugal 
concentration) to reduce and define the detergent concentration.
·   This can get expensive, using relatively large volumes detergent to 
make the dialysis buffer.  Nonetheless the most recent crystals were obtained 
from dialysed protein.

·   Trial extraction, purification, and crystallisation with different 
detergents (using desalting or Q-sepharose columns).  Poor diffraction could be 
indicative of detergent-mediated crystal contacts (rather than protein-protein).
·   Use of shorter detergents (e.g. Cymal-3 to -6) or mixed detergent 
micelles
1   Reconstruct sparse matrix screens with each different detergent
2   See Lemieux et al. (2003), Protein Science.

·   Identify membrane lipids associated with protein (in-house by TLC or 
otherwise).  Retaining some native lipid or adding it back in at 
crystallization may improve crystal quality.  Conversely total delipidation may 
also help.
·   Need to correlate successful crystallisation with presence/absence of 
lipid
1   Could try using lipid-like detergents (FC or DHPC)

·   Deglycosylation is checked on SDS-PAGE, and confirmed by the loss of 
higher molecular weight smears (which are present before deglycosylation 
reaction).
·   Alternatively protein could be digested with Endolgycosidase H, which 
leaves one GlcNac residue on each glycosylation site.  This could improve 
crystal contacts.  See Chang, V.T. et al. (2007) Glycoprotein structural 
genomics: solving the glycosylation problem.   Structure 15(3):267-73

·   Chemical modification of surface residues may improve crystal contacts, 
for example lysine methylation.
·   See Walter et al. (2006) Lysine methylation as a routine rescue 
strategy for protein crystallization. Structure 14(11):1617-22
1   Mutagenesis is another alternative, but we have not yet been successful 
producing a recombinant protein.

*   Adding salt (or PEG) to reservoir solution may promote crystal growth 
in the aqueous phase, rather than the 'oil/gel' phase.
*   Conditions producing the crystals grown in this 'gel' had PEG 1K or 2K 
as precipitant, and low [NaCl] present. (Is the suggestion 'to increase the 
concentration beyond that of the reservoir solution?').

*   Test crystallisation conditions at low temperature (e.g. 4°C)

·   Test oils (paraffin or paraton-N) as cryoprotectants.  Alternatively 
maintain detergent concentration in cryoprotectant.
·   Paratone oil (softened with some mineral oil) was used with poorly 
diffracting native crystals, and showed no improvement in diffraction.  It has 
not been attempted with more recent protein crystals grown in presence of 
ligand.

*   Attempt to collect a 10Ang dataset and try MR with a close homolog.


Many thanks.

Regards,
Damon.

__

Damon Colbert
School of Biological Sciences
University of Auckland

Email: d.colb...@auckland.ac.nz