Tell me more about x-ray crystallography, Veeky Forums. I hear integral membrane proteins are quite a challenge

Tell me more about x-ray crystallography, Veeky Forums. I hear integral membrane proteins are quite a challenge.

Other urls found in this thread:

associomics.dpb.carnegiescience.edu/Associomics/Read_More.html)
sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/S1046592802005648?np=y)
sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nprot.2009.27
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1914/laue-bio.html
youtube.com/watch?v=9QSndKuLGiA
jcrystal.com/steffenweber/
jcrystal.com/
biochem.utah.edu/hill/wcpcw.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Nice resolution.

Yes, they are very difficult to express, purify, and crystallize.

For some reason it's much harder to get E. coli to express membrane proteins than any other type, at least in any meaningful amount, without killing the cell.

Purification and crystallization are also tough because, since it's a membrane protein, correct conformation often depends on the presence of a lipid bilayer for the transmembrane domains. If you don't have that layer, you might not fold the protein correctly, which means any structure you crystallize might be just plain wrong.

Usually people get around this by expressing just the free domains of a protein, but this again has its issues. You don't know that the protein folded correctly without the transmembrane domain. Also, if your protein has a multi-pass structure and the tertiary structure depends on the loops between passes being present, again, you might not fold correctly.

We've run into this problem a lot in our lab because the membrane protein we're interested has a good deal of sequence similarity to bacterial histidine kinases, so we think it might actually be functionally active in E. coli in a way that kills the cell.

> we think it might actually be functionally active in E. coli in a way that kills the cell
Thats like one of the common lame excuses for laziness
>Hurr my protein is toxic, i cant express it, so i cant raise antibody
Not in your case of course

We're not a biochem lab anyway so we don't actually care that much about the crystal structure. We just use epitope tags if we need to run westerns or fluorescent protein fusions for localization experiments.

I thought most of the problem with expressing non-native membrane proteins in, say, E. coli, was due to codon bias. I have a question for this thread: say I do want to express a eukaryotic TMP, they require a motley of posttranslational modifications like glycosylation and palmitoylation for proper transfer and insertion. What model organisms are usually used for isolating a decent quantity of these proteins? I know there's been promising work with Xenopus oocytes that's really conducive to good batches of protein, but I don't see it happening in our lab.

Insect cells? CHO?

Codon optimization won't change the amino acid sequence, so you can optimize for whatever system you're expressing in without worry.

Your situation sounds like an absolute nightmare desu. I wouldn't even want to try that experiment unless I knew there were closely related PTM'ing enzymes present in the system that I had a good expectation would be active.

Maybe try expressing in yeast?

There was a paper a while back that tried to prepare a plant membrane interactome database (associomics.dpb.carnegiescience.edu/Associomics/Read_More.html) that used a yeast two-hybrid approach to detect interactions. They were doing expression for detection of function rather than purification though.

It's difficult. The bottleneck really comes with getting a respectful, pure batch. There are a lot of other setbacks too. The literature on this protein is simply convoluted. Apparently, tagging this TMP with GFP gives it greater propensity to aggregate, there isn't much work on this protein with other receptors either, nor cross-comparison of other fluorescent receptor-binding proteins with wild-type, and wild-type alone has a rapid turnover rate and a very sad half-life.

There is this paper (sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/S1046592802005648?np=y) from 2002 with a brief paragraph on conducting a preliminary crystallization, which turned out inconclusive. They exchange detergents, circular dichroism gives wonky results, it's... just very ugly.

So I'm just here trying to piece shit together. I probably won't need to crystallize it if it's that tortuous, 18kDa is good for NMR, no? We'll see where this takes me.

>tagging this TMP with GFP gives it greater propensity to aggregate
GFP can do that to pretty much any protein it's fused to, not just TMPs. But yeah that's a problem. Good luck m8. Sounds like NMR might be your best bet, yeah.