Literature DB >> 12657807

Comparison of three commercial sparse-matrix crystallization screens.

Jong Wei Wooh1, Richard D Kidd, Jennifer L Martin, Bostjan Kobe.   

Abstract

Sparse-matrix sampling using commercially available crystallization screen kits has become the most popular way of determining the preliminary crystallization conditions for macromolecules. In this study, the efficiency of three commercial screening kits, Crystal Screen and Crystal Screen 2 (Hampton Research), Wizard Screens I and II (Emerald BioStructures) and Personal Structure Screens 1 and 2 (Molecular Dimensions), has been compared using a set of 19 diverse proteins. 18 proteins yielded crystals using at least one crystallization screen. Surprisingly, Crystal Screens and Personal Structure Screens showed dramatically different results, although most of the crystallization formulations are identical as listed by the manufacturers. Higher molecular weight polyethylene glycols and mixed precipitants were found to be the most effective precipitants in this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12657807     DOI: 10.1107/s0907444903002919

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr        ISSN: 0907-4449


  9 in total

1.  Rationalizing alpha-helical membrane protein crystallization.

Authors:  Simon Newstead; Sébastien Ferrandon; So Iwata
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2008-01-24       Impact factor: 6.725

Review 2.  Determination of protein structures--a series of fortunate events.

Authors:  Maksymilian Chruszcz; Alexander Wlodawer; Wladek Minor
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2008-04-25       Impact factor: 4.033

3.  Binding of Gd(3+) to the neuronal signalling protein calexcitin identifies an exchangeable Ca(2+)-binding site.

Authors:  Lucas Chataigner; Jingxu Guo; Peter T Erskine; Alun R Coker; Steve P Wood; Zoltan Gombos; Jonathan B Cooper
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr F Struct Biol Commun       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 1.056

4.  Insights into outer membrane protein crystallization.

Authors:  Simon Newstead; Jeanette Hobbs; Davina Jordan; Elisabeth P Carpenter; So Iwata
Journal:  Mol Membr Biol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.857

5.  Using isoelectric point to determine the pH for initial protein crystallization trials.

Authors:  Jobie Kirkwood; David Hargreaves; Simon O'Keefe; Julie Wilson
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 6.937

6.  The MORPHEUS II protein crystallization screen.

Authors:  Fabrice Gorrec
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr F Struct Biol Commun       Date:  2015-06-27       Impact factor: 1.056

7.  The current approach to initial crystallization screening of proteins is under-sampled.

Authors:  Fabrice Gorrec
Journal:  J Appl Crystallogr       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 3.304

8.  Analysis of crystallization data in the Protein Data Bank.

Authors:  Jobie Kirkwood; David Hargreaves; Simon O'Keefe; Julie Wilson
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr F Struct Biol Commun       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 1.056

9.  Biochemical and Structural Characterization of the Carbohydrate Transport Substrate-binding-protein SP0092.

Authors:  Simone Culurgioni; Minzhe Tang; David R Hall; Martin A Walsh
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 1.355

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.