PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons

Related Articles
Families in Gene Neighborhoods
June 2015
Expanding the Reach of SAD
April 2015
Greasing the Path for SFX
January 2015
Time-Resolved Crystallography with HATRX
December 2014
Structures Without Damage
August 2014
Error Prevention
July 2014
A Refined Refinement Strategy
May 2014
Membrane Proteome: Microcrystals Yield Big Data
April 2014
Optimizing Damage
February 2014
Getting Better at Low Resolution
January 2014
Building a Structural Library
November 2013
Drug Discovery: Identifying Dynamic Networks by CONTACT
October 2013
Microbiome: Solid-State NMR, Crystallized
September 2013
Fluorescence- and Chromatography-Based Protein Thermostability Assay
October 2012
Insert Here
October 2012
Native phasing
August 2012
Smaller may be better
April 2012
Metal mates
February 2012
Not so cool
December 2011
One from many
August 2011
Rosetta hone
July 2011
Solutions in the solution
June 2011
Beyond crystals, solutions, and powders
May 2011
Snapshot crystallography
March 2011
FERM-ly bound
February 2011
A new amphiphile for crystallizing membrane proteins
January 2011
'Super-resolution' large complexes
December 2010
Proteinase K and Digalacturonic Acid
September 2010
Some crystals like it hot
May 2010
Tips for crystallizing membrane proteins in lipidic mesophases
February 2010
Tackling the phase problem
November 2009
Crystallizing glycoproteins
September 2009
Crystals from recalcitrant proteins
August 2009
Tips for crystallizing membrane proteins
June 2009
Chaperone-assisted crystallography
March 2009
An “X-ray” ruler
January 2009
Methylation boosts protein crystallization
December 2008

Technology Topics Crystallography

Proteinase K and Digalacturonic Acid

PSI-SBKB [doi:10.3942/psi_sgkb/fm_2010_9]
Featured System - September 2010
Short description: X-ray crystallography is one of the most exact experimental techniques, but ironically, it is also one that relies on sheer luck.

X-ray crystallography is one of the most exact experimental techniques, but ironically, it is also one that relies on sheer luck. With crystallography, we can determine the location of each atom in a protein, allowing us to explore the nanoscale details of our molecular machines. Crystallography, however, relies on crystals, and protein crystals are notoriously difficult to grow. For decades, crystallographers have perfected their methods, and today, large systematic screens and automation have vastly improved the success rate for crystallization. Effective crystal-growing methods are particularly essential for structural genomics, since its goal is to determine structures for all proteins in a given organism. To achieve this goal, structural genomics researchers need to be confident that they can obtain crystals when they need them. However, many proteins still stubbornly refuse to crystallize, at least with existing crystallization methods.

Amazing Additives

Researchers at CHTSB have been exploring a new way to grow crystals. They noted that in many cases, crystals are only obtained after particular "additive" molecules are included in the crystallization mixture. These may be small molecules like nucleotides or cofactors that bind in the active site and stabilize the protein. More provocatively, they may be molecules with several functional groups that form links between molecules, stabilizing the proteins in the crystal lattice. Unfortunately, these crystal-inducing additives are often discovered by serendipity, added to the crystallization liquor based on an intuition, or even left over from the process of purification.

Finding a Needle in a Haystack

CHTSB researchers are now trying to be systematic about discovery of crystallization additives. They add a mixture of several diverse molecules to the crystallization liquor, improving the chances that one of them is the right shape and size. The trial additives are chosen for their properties: they are typically bristling with hydrogen-bonding, charged, and hydrophobic groups that interact with protein surfaces. In several large tests of proteins, these mixtures of additives have performed quite well, doubling the success rate of obtaining crystals.

Lattice Interactions

One example of the success of an additive mixture is shown here. Proteinase K was crystallized from a mixture that included three very different small molecules: an antiepileptic drug with two hydrophobic phenyl groups, an acidic sugar, and a nucleotide. The mixture also included the buffer HEPES, which has a several functional groups. The sugar was the winner. It helped coax the protein into a new crystal lattice, forming a bridge between the proteins. The lattice is shown here (PDB entry 3dyb), with the protein in blue and the sugar (digalacturonic acid) in red. The HEPES buffer also bound to the surface of the protein, as shown in green in the figure. Click on the image below to see an interactive Jmol of the interaction of digalacturonic acid between the two proteins.

The JSmol tab below displays an interactive JSmol

Isoxanthopterin Deaminase (PDB entry 2paj)

The active site of isoxanthopterin deaminase includes a zinc ion (magenta) coordinated by three histidines and an aspartate (green). Based on comparisons to similar enzymes, several amino acids (shown in turquoise) are predicted to be important for recognition of the substrate. A water molecule is used in the deamination reaction--use the buttons to turn it on and off.


  1. Larson, S.B., Day, JB., Nguyen, C., Cudney, R., McPherson, A. (2009) High-resolution structure of proteinase K cocrystallized with digalacturonic acid. Acta Cryst. F65, 192-198.

  2. Larson, S.B., Day, JB., Nguyen, C., Cudney, R., McPherson, A. (2008) Progress in the development of an alternative approach to macromolecular crystallization. Cryst. Growth Design 8, 3038-3052.

Structural Biology Knowledgebase ISSN: 1758-1338
Funded by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health