Comparison of three commercial sparse-matrix crystallization screens

被引：29

作者：

Wooh, JW

Kidd, RD

Martin, JL

Kobe, B ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Queensland, Dept Biochem & Mol Biol, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia

[2] Univ Queensland, Inst Mol Biosci, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia

[3] Univ Queensland, ARC Special Res Ctr Funct & Appl Genom, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia

[4] Univ Queensland, Cooperat Res Ctr Chron Inflammatory Dis, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia

来源：

ACTA CRYSTALLOGRAPHICA SECTION D-STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY | 2003年 / 59卷

关键词：

D O I：

10.1107/S0907444903002919

中图分类号：

Q5 [生物化学];

学科分类号：

071010 ; 081704 ;

摘要：

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.

引用

页码：769 / 772

页数：4

共 14 条

[1] THE FOCUSING POSITIONS OF POLYPEPTIDES IN IMMOBILIZED PH GRADIENTS CAN BE PREDICTED FROM THEIR AMINO-ACID-SEQUENCES [J].