Re: [ccp4bb] disorder, solvent content, and diffraction limit

- Protein crystallography

Main steps:

- Protein purification
- Crystallisation

Special:

- Programs for crystallography
- X-ray detectors

Basic tutorials:

   - Chemistry
   - Protein
   - Peptide
   - Amino Acids

Xtal community:

- CCP4BB

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999

Previous message:
Subject: Re: Stop Refmac from refining B factors?
From: "Mark A {- dot -} White" white {- at -} XRAY {- dot -} UTMB {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2007-04-18

Next message:
Subject: tcltkblt and python distributions
From: o {- dot -} h {- dot -} weiergraeber {- at -} FZ-JUELICH {- dot -} DE o {- dot -} h {- dot -} weiergraeber {- at -} FZ-JUELICH {- dot -} DE
Date: 2007-04-18

Subject: Re: disorder, solvent content, and diffraction limit
From: artem {- at -} XTALS {- dot -} ORG artem {- at -} XTALS {- dot -} ORG
Date: 2007-04-18

Mike,

This is a complicated question :) The floppy bits can contribute to
packing in several non-obvious ways.

I may be able to help you get a better crystal form, if you're willing to
share the specifics of the protein (which will be kept confidential of
course). I've developed new procedures for rational protein crystal
engineering and now need more Guinea pigs to test them.

Artem

> Greetings,
>
> I've taken a protein (structure known) with some disordered termini and
> created a new truncated construct that lacks these disordered bits
> (approx.
> 5% by mass of the total protein).
>
> To my delight, the new construct crystallizes much more readily than the
> full-length one (more hits in screening, nicer looking crystals, etc.)
> However, while the crystallization is more robust and the crystals look
> much
> "nicer", they don't diffract as well as the full-length crystals (go from
> around 2.7 angs for full-length to 3.2 or worse for truncated construct).
>
> While the truncated form gives many more crystallization hits than
> full-length, optimization always gives the same crystal form (same space
> group and unit cell dimensions), no matter which conditions are used.
>
> Given that I've removed floppy bits from my protein, I would have expected
> improved diffraction. But since I keep getting the same unit cell, I
> wonder
> if I've just increased the solvent content in my truncated construct
> crystals (less mass per same unit volume).
>
> Does this rationale make sense? Is it possible that the disordered parts
> I
> removed were in some way restraining the ordered parts of the structure?
> Should I keep searching for a new crystal form with improved lattice
> packing? btw, I have tried several different approaches to dehydrate the
> crystals and none has successfully improved diffraction.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> -Mike
>

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999

Previous message:
Subject: Re: Stop Refmac from refining B factors?
From: "Mark A {- dot -} White" white {- at -} XRAY {- dot -} UTMB {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2007-04-18