4.4 Article

AcrB et al.: Obstinate contaminants in a picogram scale. One more bottleneck in the membrane protein structure pipeline

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY
卷 166, 期 1, 页码 107-111

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsb.2008.12.007

关键词

AcrB; Succinate dehydrogenase; Heterologous expression; Picogram crystallization; Membrane protein contaminants; Structural genomics

资金

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung and Forschung (BMBF)
  2. European Membrane Protein Consortumium (e-MeP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heterologous expression of integral membrane proteins from Helicobacter pylori 26695 in Escherichia coli enabled the identification of 17 candidates for purification and subsequent crystallization. 45% of the purified proteins were contaminated with what was later identified as the multidrug efflux pump (AcrB) of E. coli, and 17% with the succinate dehydrogenase. While additional purification steps ensured removal of succinate dehydrogenase, they failed to remove AcrB completely, leaving picogram amounts present in fractions intended for 3D-crystallization. Two of these targets, the Na+ dependent D-glucose/D-galactose transporter (GluP-HP1174) and the carbon starvation protein A (CstA-HP1168), produced small crystals (<40 mu m). Crystals from the GluP preparation diffracted to 4.2 angstrom resolution and belonged to the rhombohedral space group H32. Subsequent molecular replacement proved that these crystals were derived from a contaminant, the efflux transporter AcrB. This unexpected crystallization of AcrB from picogram amounts was observed in six new conditions. The systematic occurrence of AcrB in membrane preparations stems from the upregulation of its transcription in response to the stress induced by the expression of a selected target. This, along with its tendency to crystallize in the picogram scale, poses a serious concern in membrane protein expression using heterologous hosts harbouring AcrB. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据