Crystallization of a globular protein in lipid cubic phase

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 92, Issue 12, 2004, Pages

  Tanaka, S ^a   Egelhaaf, S U ^a   Poon, W C K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CRYSTALLIZATION; DIFFUSION; ELASTICITY; FREE ENERGY; LATTICE CONSTANTS; LIPIDS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; NUCLEATION; OPTICAL MICROSCOPY; PHASE DIAGRAMS; SOLUBILITY; THERMODYNAMICS; VOLUME FRACTION;

CHEMICAL POTENTIAL; LYSOZYME MOLECULES; MESOSCOPIC DEFECTS; WIDOM INSERTION METHOD;

PROTEINS;

ACYLGLYCEROL; GLYCEROL OLEATE; LYSOZYME;

CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; CRYSTALLIZATION;

CRYSTALLIZATION; GLYCERIDES; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MURAMIDASE;

EID: 85032428758     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.128102     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. E. M. Landau, G. Rummel, S. W. Cowan-Jacob, and J. P. Rosenbusch, J. Phys. Chem. B 101, 1935 (1997).
2. L. D. Gelb, K. E. Gubbins, R. Radhakrishnan, and M. Sliwinska-Bartkowiak, Rep. Prog. Phys. 62, 1573 (1999).
3. Y. Lin et al., Science 299, 226 (2003).
4. V. N. Manoharan, M. T. Elsesser, and D. J. Pine, Science 301, 483 (2003).
5. A. McPherson, Crystallization of Biological Macromolecules (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, 1999).
6. E. M. Landau and J. P. Rosenbusch, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 14532 (1996).
7. M. Caffrey, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 10, 486 (2000).
8. M. Grabe, J. Neu, G. Oster, and P. Nollert, Biophys. J. 84, 854 (2003).
9. See, e.g., W. C. K. Poon et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 12, L569 (2000).
10. The bulk nucleation boundary is known [9], but comparing two kinetic boundaries is just as problematic. Nevertheless, if we proceed, we find that the factor of 4 gives coincidence for φ > 0.1, while a factor of order 10 is needed for lower φ. This may indicate changes in the MO cubic phase structure and/or the lysozyme nucleation mechanism as protein density changes. But this level of quantitative interpretation is almost certainly unjustified in the spirit of this work.
11. V. Razumas et al., Chem. Phys. Lipids 84, 123 (1996).
12. H. Chung and M. Caffrey, Nature (London) 368, 224 (1994).
13. Each water cell in the Pn3m structure holds 4 lysozymes. Razumas et al. [11] suggest this is why MO prefers the Im3m structure at high protein concentrations.
14. O. Galkin and P. G. Vekilov, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 122, 156 (2000).
15. C. C. F. Blake et al., Nature (London) 206, 757 (1965).
16. R. Mu, Y. Xue, D. O. Henderson, and D. O. Frazier, Phys. Rev. B 53, 6041 (1996).
17. K. S. Page and P. A. Monson, Phys. Rev. E 54, 6557 (1996).
18. A. M. Kulkarni, N. M. Dixit, and C. F. Zukoski, Faraday Discuss. 123, 37 (2003).
19. R. P. Sear, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 4800 (1999).
20. R. J. Buehler, R. H. Wentorf, J. O. Hirschfelder, and C. Curtiss, J. Chem. Phys. 19, 61 (1951).
21. B. Widom, J. Chem. Phys. 39, 2808 (1963).
22. Note that the same result is obtained (data not shown) if we map ε to the salt concentration via measured second virial coefficients [18,25].
23. In practice, we expect α > 4.3, since the charges on the lysozyme lead to repulsive image-charge interactions close to a low-dielectric constant bilayer. At a salt concentration of ∼0.2 M, the protein-bilayer gap has to be considerably smaller than ∼0.7 nm to result in a noticeable effect.
24. H. Qui and M. Caffrey, Biomaterials 21, 223 (2000).
25. A. M. Kulkarni, A. P. Chatterjee, K. S. Schweizer, and C. F. Zukoski, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 9863 (2000).