help button home button Biophys. J.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cherezov, V.
Right arrow Articles by Caffrey, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cherezov, V.
Right arrow Articles by Caffrey, M.

Biophys J, July 2001, p. 225-242, Vol. 81, No. 1

Crystallization Screens: Compatibility with the Lipidic Cubic Phase for in Meso Crystallization of Membrane Proteins

Vadim Cherezov, Hannan Fersi, and Martin Caffrey

Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Chemistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 USA

The in meso method for growing crystals of membrane proteins uses a spontaneously forming lipidic cubic mesophase. The detergent-solubilized protein is dispersed with lipid, typically monoolein, and in so doing the cubic phase self-assembles. A precipitant is added to trigger crystal nucleation and growth. The commercial screen solution series are convenient for use in crystallization trials. The aim of this study was to determine which of the Hampton Screen and Screen 2 series of solutions are compatible with the in meso method. These screens contain components any of which could destroy the cubic phase. X-ray diffraction was used for phase identification and for microstructure characterization. The study was done at 4°C and at 20°C. Two types of sample preparations were examined. One used an excess of half-strength screen solution (Prep. 1). The other used a limiting quantity of undiluted screen solution (Prep. 2). At 20°C, over 90% of the screen solutions produced the cubic phase with Prep. 1. This figure dropped to 50% with Prep. 2. In contrast, 50 to 60% of the screens were cubic phase compatible at 4°C under Prep. 1 conditions. The figure fell to 25% with Prep. 2. The mode of action of the diverse screen components are explained on the basis of the phase properties of the monoolein/water system.

Biophys J, July 2001, p. 225-242, Vol. 81, No. 1
© 2001 by the Biophysical Society   0006-3495/01/07/225/18  $2.00


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Biophys. JHome page
Y. Misquitta and M. Caffrey
Detergents Destabilize the Cubic Phase of Monoolein: Implications for Membrane Protein Crystallization
Biophys. J., November 1, 2003; 85(5): 3084 - 3096.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Biophys. JHome page
V. Cherezov, J. Clogston, Y. Misquitta, W. Abdel-Gawad, and M. Caffrey
Membrane Protein Crystallization In Meso: Lipid Type-Tailoring of the Cubic Phase
Biophys. J., December 1, 2002; 83(6): 3393 - 3407.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the Biophysical Society.