Certain
chemical compounds or small molecules may have dramatic effects on
the success with which individual proteins crystallize. While additives,
as they are often called, can be decisive in macromolecular crystallization,
their greater use has suffered from lack of any compelling, rational
basis for their inclusion in mother liquors. The most commonly useful
class of additives, and the only class of which we have any real understanding,
are those which may, for physiological reasons, be bound by the protein
with consequent favorable changes in its physical–chemical properties
or conformation. These include such things as coenzymes and prosthetic
groups, inhibitors, enzymatic products, ions, and other effector molecules.
Often the liganded form is structurally defined and stable, while the
unliganded form is not, and often the former will crystallize when
the latter will not.
Numerous cases have, however, been reported where small, and sometimes
large molecules were observed to make crucial interactions between macromolecules
in the crystal that either helped guide or secure formation of the lattice.
Such small molecules sometimes had a physiological basis for their unexpected
presence, but frequently not. They simply provided essential or at least
helpful crosslinks within the crystal. A casual poll of crystallographic
colleagues provided a list of 50 or so molecules identified (or at least
believed to be so), which had been unintentionally incorporated into
various protein crystals. There are undoubtedly many more.
Therefore, based on a hypothesis that various
small molecules might establish stabilizing, intermolecular, non covalent
crosslinks in protein crystals and thereby promote lattice formation,
Dr. Alexander McPherson and his colleagues at the University of California
at Irvine (UC Irvine) have assessed the impact of 200 chemicals on
the propensity of 81 different proteins and viruses to crystallize.
The experiments were comprised of 18,240 vapor diffusion trials. A
salient feature of the experiments was that, aside from the inclusion
of the reagent mixes, only two fundamental crystallization conditions
were used, 30% PEG 3350, and 50% Tacsimate™ (Hampton
Research, Aliso Viejo, CA) at pH 7. The latter, a new precipitant
composed of seven different pH neutralized organic acid salts, has seen
increasing success not only because it produces high ionic strengths,
but almost certainly because it provides a diverse set of molecules that
can form hydrogen bonding or electrostatic, reversible crosslinks between
proteins in the crystal lattice.
Overall, 65 proteins (85%) were crystallized.
Most significant was that 35 of the 65 (54%) crystallized only in the
presence of one or more reagent mixes, but not in control samples lacking
any additives. Among the most promising types of reagent mixes were
those composed of polyvalent, charged groups, such as di and tri carboxylic
acids, diamino compounds, molecules bearing one or more sulfonyl or
phosphate groups, and a broad range of common biochemicals, coenzymes,
biological effectors, and ligands. Many
crystals obtained in these experiments were microcrystals, but a significant
number, as evidenced by the pictures on this page, were immediately suitable
for X-ray diffraction analysis. Also, in many cases, different crystal
forms appeared depending on the reagents used.
The collaboration between UC Irvine (developing
more effective crystallization cocktails) and the Hauptman-Woodward
Institute (HWI) (high-throughput crystallization methods) creates an
opportunity for a group of "silver
bullet" cocktails to be integrated into the 1536 screening solutions
used by the high-throughput crystallization laboratory at HWI.
References
McPherson, A. & Cudney, R. (2006). Searching for silver bullets: an
alternative strategy for crystallizing macromolecules. J. Struct. Biol. 156,
387–406. [PubMed] Larson, S. B., Day, J. S., Cudney, R. & McPherson, A. (2007). A novel
strategy for the crystallization of proteins: X-ray diffraction validation. Acta
Crystallogr. D63, 310–318. [PubMed] |