Suppr超能文献

三种商业稀疏矩阵结晶筛选方法的比较。

Comparison of three commercial sparse-matrix crystallization screens.

作者信息

Wooh Jong Wei, Kidd Richard D, Martin Jennifer L, Kobe Bostjan

机构信息

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

出版信息

Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2003 Apr;59(Pt 4):769-72. doi: 10.1107/s0907444903002919. Epub 2003 Mar 25.

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.

摘要

使用市售结晶筛选试剂盒进行稀疏矩阵采样已成为确定大分子初步结晶条件的最常用方法。在本研究中,使用一组19种不同的蛋白质比较了三种商业筛选试剂盒的效率,即Crystal Screen和Crystal Screen 2(Hampton Research公司)、Wizard Screens I和II(Emerald BioStructures公司)以及Personal Structure Screens 1和2(Molecular Dimensions公司)。18种蛋白质使用至少一种结晶筛选方法得到了晶体。令人惊讶的是,尽管制造商列出的大多数结晶配方相同,但Crystal Screens和Personal Structure Screens显示出截然不同的结果。在本研究中发现,高分子量聚乙二醇和混合沉淀剂是最有效的沉淀剂。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验