High- Throughput Crystallography for Structural Proteomics

  • Jeff Yon
  • Mladen Vinkovic
  • Harren Jhoti
Part of the Springer Protocols Handbooks book series (SPH)


The last decade has seen the success of large-scale sequence determination projects, and an increasing number of sequenced genomes have become available (http:// This in turn has led to efforts to understand the functions of the many newly discovered proteins, and hence to greater interest in high-throughput protein structure determination (1,bi2). Thus the last 5 yr has seen the rise of structural proteomics efforts, whose goal has been the large-scale determination of protein structures using the techniques of X-ray crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) (the terms structural proteomics and structural genomics are often used interchangeably, and no distinction is made in this review). Structural proteomics is expected to contribute to functional studies, as the structures of novel proteins may give insight into their functions as well as having a major impact on drug discovery, as some of these new proteins will be therapeutic targets (3,4 ). An additional level of complexity results from the fact that proteins are often found as part of multiprotein complexes. Although high-throughput structure determination of multiprotein complexes will be even more difficult than for isolated proteins, it will undoubtedly lead to a better understanding of function and mechanism (5).


Laboratory Information Management System Protein Structure Initiative Image Plate Detector Structural Proteomics Mercuric Salt 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Burley, S. K., et al. (1999). Structural genomics: beyond the human genome project. Nature Genet. 23, 151–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Service R. F. (2000). Structural genomics offers high-speed look at proteins. Science 287, 1954–1956.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Skolnick, J., et al. (2000). Structural genomics and its importance for gene function analysis. Nature Biotech. 18, 283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang, C. and Kim, S.-H. (2003) Overview of structural genomics: from structure to function. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 7, 28–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sali, A., et al. (2003). From words to literature in structural proteomics. Nature 422,216–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yokoyama, S., et al. (2000). Structural genomics project in Japan. Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 943–945.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norvell, J. and Machalek, A. Z. (2000). Structural genomics programs at the US National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 931.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heinemann, U. (2000). Structural genomics in Europe: slow start, strong finish? Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 940–942.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Service, R. F. (2003). Canada vaults into drug-oriented protein research. Science 300, 28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zulauf, M. and D’ Arcy, A. (1992) Light scattering of proteins as a criterion for crystallization. J. Crystal Growth 122, 102–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blundell, T. L., Jhoti, H., and Abell, C.(2002). High-throughput crystallography for lead discovery in drug design. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 1,45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heinemann, U., et al. (2003) Facilities and methods for the high-throughput crystal structural analysis of human proteins. Acc. Chem. Res. 36, 157–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dieckman, L., et al. (2002). High-throughput methods for gene cloning and expression. Prot. Exp. Purif. 25, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edwards, A. M., et al. (2003) Producing proteins. In: (eiChasman, D. I., ed.) Protein Structure: Determination, Analysis, and Applications for Drug Discovery. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY: 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Okazaki, Y., et al. (2002) Analysis of the mouse transcriptome based on functional annotation of 60,770 full-length cDNAs. Nature 420, 563–573.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stevens, R. (2000) Design of high-through methods of protein production for structural biology. Structure 8, R177–R185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doublie, S. (1997) Preparation of selenomethionyl proteins forphase determination. Methods Enzymol. 276, 523–530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chambers, S. P. (2002). High-throughput protein expression for the post-genomic era. Drug Disc. Today 7,759–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Savchenko, A., et al. (2003) Strategies for structural proteomics of prokaryotes: quantifying the advantages of studying orthologous proteins and of using both NMR and X-ray crystallography approaches. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. 50, 392–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Service, R. F. (2002). Tapping DNA for structures produces a trickle. Science 298,948–950.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Braun, P. and LaBaer, J. (2003) High throughput protein production for functional proteomics. Trends Biotechnol. 21, 383–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holz, al. (2003) Establishing the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a system for expression of human proteins on a proteome-scale. J. Struct. Func. Gen. 4, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boettner, M., et al. (2002) High-throughput screening for expresion of heterologous proteins in the yeast Pichia pastoris. J. Biotechnol. 99, 51–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yon, J. and Jhoti, H. (2003) High throughput structural genomics and proteomics: where are we now? TARGETS 2, 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Albala, J. S., et al. (2000). From genes to proteins: high-throughput expression and purification of the human proteome. J. Cellular Biochem. 80, 187–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yokoyama, S. (2003) Protein expression systems for structural genomics and proteomics. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 7, 39–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kigawa, T. et al. (1999). Cell-free production and stable-isotope labeling of milligram quantities of proteins. FEBS Lett. 442, 15–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kigawa, al. (2001). Selenomethionine incorporation into a protein by cell-free synthesis. J. Struct. Funct. Genomics 2, 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Busso, D., Kim, R., and Kim, S-H. (2003) Expression of soluble recombinant proteins in a cell-free system using a 96-well format. J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 55, 233–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Endo, Y. and Sawasaki, T. (2003) High-throughput, genome-scale protein production method based on the wheat germ cell-free expression system. Biotechnol. Adv. 21,695–713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sawasaki, al. (2002). A cell-free protein synthesis system for high-throughput proteomics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 14,652-14,657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Waldo, G. S. (2003). Genetic screens and directed evolution for protein solubility. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 7, 33–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pedelacq, J.-D., et al. (2002). Engineering soluble proteins for structural genomics.Nature Biotechnol. 20, 927–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yang, J. K., et al. (2003) Directed evolution approach to a structural genomics project: Rv2002 from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 455–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lesley, S. A. (2001). High-throughput proteomics: protein expression and purification in the postgenomic world. Protein Exp. Purif. 22, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McPherson, A. (1999) Crystallization of Biological Macromolecules. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Luft, J. R., et al. (2001) Macromolecular crystallization in a high throughput laboratory-the search phase. J. Cryst. Growth 232, 591–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stevens, R. C. (2000). High-throughput protein crystallization. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 10, 558–563.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilson, J. (2002) Towards the automated evaluation of crystallization trials. Acta Crystallogr. D58, 1907–1914.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Spraggon, G., et al. (2002) Computational analysis of crystallization trials. Acta Crystallogr. D58, 1915–1923.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dale, G. E. et al. (2003) The protein as a vaiable in protein crystallization. J. Struct. Biol. 142, 88–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Luft, J. R., et al. (2003) A deliberate approach to screening for initial crystallization conditions of biological macromolecules. J. Struct. Biol. 142, 170–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Santarsiero, B. D., et al. (2002) An approach to rapid protein crystallization using nanodroplets. J. Appl. Cryst. 35, 278–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hansen, L., et al. (2002) A robust and scalable microfluidic metering method that allows protein crystal growth by free interface diffusion. PNAS 99, 16,531-16,536.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boggon, T. J. and Shapiro, L. (2000) Screening for phasing atoms in protein crystallography Structure 8, R143–R149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kissinger, R., Gehlhaar, D. K., and Fogel, D. B. (1999) Rapid automated molecular replacement by evolutionary search. Acta Crystallogr. 55, 484–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Perrakis, A., Morris, R., and Lamzin, V. S. (1999) Automated protein model building combined with iterative structure refinement. Nat. Struct. Biol. 6,458–463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Morris, R. J., Perrakis, A., and Lamzin, V. S. (2002) ARP/wARP’s model-building algorithms. I. The main chain. Acta Crystallogr. D58, 968–975.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    DePristo, M. A., de Bakker, P. I. W., Shetty, R. P., and Blundell, T. L. (2003) Discrete restraint-based protein modeling and the Ca-trace problem. Protein Sci. 12, 2032–2046.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Murshudov, G. N., Vagin, A. A., and Dodson, E. J. (1997) Refinement of Macromolecular Structures by the Maximum-Likelihood Method. Acta Crystallogr. D53, 240–255.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Adams, P. D., et al. (1997) Cross-validated maximum likelihood enhances crystallographic simulated annealing refinement. PNAS 94, 5018–5023.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Blundell, T. L., et al. (2002) High-throughput X-ray crystallography for drug discovery. In: (eiFlower, D. R., ed.) Drug Design: Special Publication, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK 279, 53–59.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Adams, P. D., et al. (2002) PHENIX: building new software for automated crystallographic structure determination. Acta Cryst. D58, 1948–1954.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brunzelle, J. S., et al. (2003) Automated crystallographic system for high-throughput protein structure determination. Acta Cryst. D59, 1138–1144.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hartshorn, M. J. (2002) AstexViewer: a visualisation aid for structure-based drug design. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16, 871–881.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Goh, C.-S., et al. (2003) SPINE 2: a system for collaborative structural proteomics within a federated database framework. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 2833–2838.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Peat, al. (2002) From information management to protein annotation: preparing protein structures for drug discovery. Acta Cryst. D58, 1968–1970.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Boehm, H.-J., et al. (2000). Novel inhibitors of DNA gyrase: 3D structure based biased needle screening, hit validation by biophysical methods, and 3D guided optimization. A promising alternative to random screening. J. Med. Chem. 43, 2664–2674.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fejzo, J., et al. (1999). The SHAPES strategy: an NMR-based approach for lead generation in drug discovery. Chem. Biol. 6, 755–769.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Carr, R. and Jhoti, H. (2002). Structure-based screening of low-affinity compounds. Drug Discovery Today 7, 522–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nienaber, V. L., et al. (2000). Discovering novel ligands for macromolecules using X-ray crystallographic screening. Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 1105–1107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nowakowski, J., et al. (2002). Structures of the cancer-related Aurora-A, FAK and EphA2 protein kinases from nanovolume crystallography. Structure 10, 1659–1667.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mol, D., et al. (2003) Structure of a c-kit product complex reveals the basis for kinase transactivation. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 31,461-31,464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Williams, P. A., et al. (2003) Crystal structure of human cytochrome P450 with bound warfarin. Nature 424, 464–468.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeff Yon
    • 1
  • Mladen Vinkovic
    • 1
  • Harren Jhoti
    • 1
  1. 1.Astex Technology Ltd.Cambridge

Personalised recommendations