Just to add on that, regarding membrane proteins: I noticed some recent publications on solid-state NMR for membrane proteins, not sure about solution NMR for this class.
Boaz
Boaz Shaanan, Ph.D.
Dept. of Life Sciences
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Beer-Sheva 84105
Israel
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 972-8-647-2220 Skype: boaz.shaanan
Fax: 972-8-647-2992 or 972-8-646-1710
________________________________________
From: CCP4 bulletin board [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Mark van Raaij [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 8:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Off-topic: NMR and crystallography
Well, if you do NMR you avoid the possible bottlenecks of having to obtain well-diffracting crystals, and having to phase the protein (i.e. obtain SeMet protein crystals or suitable heavy atom derivatives; or a suitable MR model).
But instead, you'll need to prepare labelled protein (15N and/or 13C), which is expensive and for which your protein needs to be able to be expressed in minimal medium, and your protein will need to be very soluble, monodisperse (in general monomeric) and stable in a minimal NMR-compatible buffer for data collections lasting for hours. Assigning all the protons and calculating the final structure can also be months of work, while a high-resolution crystal structure can be finished in days, if the above-mentioned bottle-necks can be overcome.
On 9 Jun 2013, at 17:36, Theresa Hsu wrote:
> Dear all
>
> A question for the cross-trained members of this forum - for small sized proteins, is NMR better than crystallography in terms of data collection (having crystals in the first place) and data processing? How about membrane proteins?
>
> I would appreciate replies to the board, instead of off-board, to allow for a good discussion.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Theresa
|