Harvesting and Cryo-cooling Crystals of Membrane Proteins Grown in Lipidic Mesophases for Structure Determination by Macromolecular Crystallography

Membrane Structural and Functional Biology Group, Schools of Medicine and Biochemistry & Immunology, Trinity College Dublin.
Journal of Visualized Experiments 09/2012; DOI: 10.3791/4001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT An important route to understanding how proteins function at a mechanistic level is to have the structure of the target protein available, ideally at atomic resolution. Presently, there is only one way to capture such information as applied to integral membrane proteins (Figure 1), and the complexes they form, and that method is macromolecular X-ray crystallography (MX). To do MX diffraction quality crystals are needed which, in the case of membrane proteins, do not form readily. A method for crystallizing membrane proteins that involves the use of lipidic mesophases, specifically the cubic and sponge phases1-5, has gained considerable attention of late due to the successes it has had in the G protein-coupled receptor field6-21 ( However, the method, henceforth referred to as the in meso or lipidic cubic phase method, comes with its own technical challenges. These arise, in part, due to the generally viscous and sticky nature of the lipidic mesophase in which the crystals, which are often micro-crystals, grow. Manipulating crystals becomes difficult as a result and particularly so during harvesting22,23. Problems arise too at the step that precedes harvesting which requires that the glass sandwich plates in which the crystals grow (Figure 2)24,25 are opened to expose the mesophase bolus, and the crystals therein, for harvesting, cryo-cooling and eventual X-ray diffraction data collection.
The cubic and sponge mesophase variants (Figure 3) from which crystals must be harvested have profoundly different rheologies4,26. The cubic phase is viscous and sticky akin to a thick toothpaste. By contrast, the sponge phase is more fluid with a distinct tendency to flow. Accordingly, different approaches for opening crystallization wells containing crystals growing in the cubic and the sponge phase are called for as indeed different methods are required for harvesting crystals from the two mesophase types. Protocols for doing just that have been refined and implemented in the Membrane Structural and Functional Biology (MS&FB) Group, and are described in detail in this JoVE article (Figure 4). Examples are given of situations where crystals are successfully harvested and cryo-cooled. We also provide examples of cases where problems arise that lead to the irretrievable loss of crystals and describe how these problems can be avoided. In this article the Viewer is provided with step-by-step instructions for opening glass sandwich crystallization wells, for harvesting and for cryo-cooling crystals of membrane proteins growing in cubic and in sponge phases.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The lipid cubic phase or in meso method is a robust approach for crystallizing membrane proteins for structure determination. The uptake of the method is such that it is experiencing what can only be described as explosive growth. This timely, comprehensive and up-to-date review introduces the reader to the practice of in meso crystallogenesis, to the associated challenges and to their solutions. A model of how crystallization comes about mechanistically is presented for a more rational approach to crystallization. The possible involvement of the lamellar and inverted hexagonal phases in crystallogenesis and the application of the method to water-soluble, monotopic and lipid-anchored proteins are addressed. How to set up trials manually and automatically with a robot is introduced with reference to open-access online videos that provide a practical guide to all aspects of the method. These range from protein reconstitution to crystal harvesting from the hosting mesophase, which is noted for its viscosity and stickiness. The sponge phase, as an alternative medium in which to perform crystallization, is described. The compatibility of the method with additive lipids, detergents, precipitant-screen components and materials carried along with the protein such as denaturants and reducing agents is considered. The powerful host and additive lipid-screening strategies are described along with how samples that have low protein concentration and cell-free expressed protein can be used. Assaying the protein reconstituted in the bilayer of the cubic phase for function is an important element of quality control and is detailed. Host lipid design for crystallization at low temperatures and for large proteins and complexes is outlined. Experimental phasing by heavy-atom derivatization, soaking or co-crystallization is routine and the approaches that have been implemented to date are described. An overview and a breakdown by family and function of the close to 200 published structures that have been obtained using in meso-grown crystals are given. Recommendations for conducting the screening process to give a more productive outcome are summarized. The fact that the in meso method also works with soluble proteins should not be overlooked. Recent applications of the method for in situ serial crystallography at X-ray free-electron lasers and synchrotrons are described. The review ends with a view to the future and to the bright prospects for the method, which continues to contribute to our understanding of the molecular mechanisms of some of nature's most valued proteinaceous robots.
    Acta Crystallographica Section F Structural Biology and Crystallization Communications 01/2015; 71(Pt 1):3-18. DOI:10.1107/S2053230X14026843 · 0.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the marked increase in the number of membrane-protein structures solved using crystals grown by the lipid cubic phase or in meso method, only ten have been determined by SAD/MAD. This is likely to be a consequence of the technical difficulties associated with handling proteins and crystals in the sticky and viscous hosting mesophase that is usually incubated in glass sandwich plates for the purposes of crystallization. Here, a four-year campaign aimed at phasing the in meso structure of the integral membrane diacylglycerol kinase (DgkA) from Escherichia coli is reported. Heavy-atom labelling of this small hydrophobic enzyme was attempted by pre-labelling, co-crystallization, soaking, site-specific mercury binding to genetically engineered single-cysteine mutants and selenomethionine incorporation. Strategies and techniques for special handling are reported, as well as the typical results and the lessons learned for each of these approaches. In addition, an assay to assess the accessibility of cysteine residues in membrane proteins for mercury labelling is introduced. The various techniques and strategies described will provide a valuable reference for future experimental phasing of membrane proteins where crystals are grown by the lipid cubic phase method.
    Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography 01/2015; 71(Pt 1):104-122. DOI:10.1107/S1399004714010360 · 7.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An enigma in the field of peptide transport is the structural basis for ligand promiscuity, as exemplified by PepT1, the mammalian plasma membrane peptide transporter. Here, we present crystal structures of di- and tripeptide-bound complexes of a bacterial homologue of PepT1, which reveal at least two mechanisms for peptide recognition that operate within a single, centrally located binding site. The dipeptide was orientated laterally in the binding site, whereas the tripeptide revealed an alternative vertical binding mode. The co-crystal structures combined with functional studies reveal that biochemically distinct peptide-binding sites likely operate within the POT/PTR family of proton-coupled symporters and suggest that transport promiscuity has arisen in part through the ability of the binding site to accommodate peptides in multiple orientations for transport.
    EMBO Reports 06/2014; DOI:10.15252/embr.201338403 · 7.86 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from