research papers
Long-wavelength Mesh&Collect native SAD phasing from microcrystals
Harnessing the anomalous signal from macromolecular crystals with volumes of less than 10 000 µm3 for native phasing requires careful experimental planning. The type of anomalous scatterers that are naturally present in the sample, such as sulfur, phosphorus and calcium, will dictate the beam energy required and determine the level of radiation sensitivity, while the crystal size will dictate the beam size and the sample-mounting technique, in turn indicating the specifications of a suitable beamline. On the EMBL beamline P13 at PETRA III, Mesh&Collect data collection from concanavalin A microcrystals with linear dimensions of ∼20 µm or less using an accordingly sized microbeam at a wavelength of 1.892 Å (6.551 keV, close to the Mn edge at 6.549 keV) increases the expected Bijvoet ratio to 2.1% from an expected 0.7% at 12.6 keV (Se K edge), thus allowing experimental phase determination using the anomalous signal from naturally present Mn2+ and Ca2+ ions. Dozens of crystals were harvested and flash-cryocooled in micro-meshes, rapidly screened for diffraction (less than a minute per loop) and then used for serial Mesh&Collect collection of about 298 partial data sets (10° of crystal rotation per sample). The partial data sets were integrated and scaled. A for combining partial data sets was used to select those to be merged into a single data set. This final data set showed high completeness, high multiplicity and sufficient anomalous signal to locate the anomalous scatterers, and provided phasing information which allowed complete auto-tracing of the polypeptide chain. To allow the complete experiment to run in less than 2 h, a practically acceptable time frame, the diffractometer and detector had to run together with limited manual intervention. The combination of several cutting-edge components allowed accurate anomalous signal to be measured from small crystals.
Keywords: microcrystals; long wavelength; mesh; genetic algorithm; phasing.
PDB reference: concanavalin A, 6h2m
1. Introduction
De novo determination of macromolecular structures requires the accurate measurement of structure factors and retrieval of experimental phases from the crystals of the given specimen. When a model with significant structure similarities is available, phases can be retrieved using the molecular-replacement (MR) method. Otherwise, the phases must be determined experimentally. One experimental phasing method that is gaining popularity is the use of the anomalous signal from naturally occurring anomalous (native SAD) or from ad hoc incorporated anomalous scatterers (International Tables for Crystallography, 2012).
However, along with the growing popularity of ; Ravelli & McSweeney, 2000; Borek et al., 2007). Radiation damage still represents a potential issue (Ravelli & Garman, 2006) for data collection, but may also provide an opportunity to collect additional phasing information (Ravelli et al., 2003; Nanao et al., 2005). Data collection from microcrystals of macromolecular compounds can make use of multi-crystal diffraction data collection (Smith et al., 2012) to overcome radiation damage to the sample (Owen et al., 2006).
for phasing, X-ray radiation damage became a general concern for any data collection performed on an undulator beamline, resulting in systematic analyses of synchrotron data sets at room temperature or cryotemperatures, with samples showing the characteristic `fingerprints' of radiation damage (Helliwell, 1988The advantages of a multi-data-set data-collection strategy have been theoretically analysed by Liu et al. (2011), showing a reduction in the background noise of the diffraction data compared with the commonly used single-data-set strategy, with clear benefits for native and anomalous data collections. Liu et al. (2012) showed how multi-crystal data collection for a sulfur SAD experiment (reviewed in Rose et al., 2015) enabled the solution of several crystal structures at medium to low resolution from crystals with linear dimensions of ∼200 µm.
Liu et al. (2011) estimated the wavelength for the optimum transmitted anomalous signal on the basis of sample size, X-ray absorption and to be approximately 2.06 Å (6 keV), 2.47 Å (5 keV) and 3.1 Å (4 keV) for typical crystal sizes of 200, 100 and 50 µm, respectively. The use of a long wavelength increases the anomalous signal from several native atoms. For instance, data collection at λ = 2.69 Å (4.6 keV) from crystals of 50 µm in size allowed the determination of the of Cdc23Nterm, a subunit of the multimeric anaphase-promoting complex (APC/C), at 3.1 Å resolution by sulfur SAD phasing. At this energy, Cdc23Nterm had an expected Bijvoet ratio 〈|ΔFanom|〉/〈F〉 of 2.2% compared with 0.45% at λ = 1 Å (12.6 keV) (Cianci et al., 2016). Increasing the expected Bijvoet ratio 〈|ΔFanom|〉/〈F〉 by choosing an appropriate wavelength decreases the requirement in I/σ(I) for successful phasing, as discussed by Cianci et al. (2016).
Microcrystallography has advanced by using the ability to accurately locate crystals embedded in opaque matrices by rastering a mounted sample using micrometre-sized X-ray beams to test each point of the sample for diffraction, as in the case of crystals embedded in lipidic cubic phase (Cherezov et al., 2009; Warren et al., 2013). Serial crystallography using synchrotron radiation has recently shown that complete data sets can be compiled from data collected from a cryocooled vitrified suspension of in vivo-grown micrometre-sized protein crystals (Gati et al., 2014) by pumping a suspension of protein microcrystals at room temperature across the path of the X-ray beam in a glass capillary (Stellato et al., 2014) or at room temperature in a slowly flowing free-standing high-viscosity microstream (Botha et al., 2015).
In a further step towards the optimal collection of diffraction data in synchrotron serial crystallography, an automatic workflow has been developed in which many randomly oriented diffracting microcrystals are identified on a single cryocooled sample holder using a two-dimensional X-ray-based scan followed by the collection of partial data sets with online processing (Zander et al., 2015). Using this protocol, crystals of Bacillus thermoproteolyticus thermolysin (rod-shaped crystals of between 40 × 40 × 150 and 40 × 40 × 300 µm in size) were phased using an X-ray beam of 10 µm at the Zn K (1.282 Å, 9.761 keV) and crystals of the MAEL domain of Bombyx mori Maelstrom (20–50 µm in the largest dimension) were phased using an X-ray beam of 10 µm at the Se K (0.979 Å, 12.6 keV). In the latter case, 45 partial data sets were merged for the final data set to enable structure solution.
As oscillation ranges are collected using this method, the partiality of the reflections can be determined and combined to obtain a complete and high-quality data set. One problem that remains, however, is dealing with the non-isomorphism between crystals, which is highly dependent on the system being studied, crystal nucleation, microenvironment growth conditions, crystal mounting and cryoprotection methods. For a set of n partial data sets the number of possible combinations is 2n − 1, and an exhaustive search quickly becomes computationally demanding even with a small number of partial data sets. Genetic algorithms (GAs), which are well known global optimization methods that have already been applied to address diverse problems in macromolecular crystallography (Chang & Lewis, 1994; Kissinger et al., 1999; Schneider, 2002; Uervirojnangkoorn et al., 2013), have been proven to be a powerful tool to group partial data sets for merging into a high-quality data set (Zander et al., 2016).
We show here that when long wavelengths (Djinovic Carugo et al., 2005) are combined with the Mesh&Collect data-collection approach (Zander et al., 2015) and when a (GA) is used to compile a data set (Zander et al., 2016), a native SAD (Rose et al., 2015) experiment can yield a structure solution from microcrystals. Finally, optimization of the X-ray scanning routines and data-collection flows allowed thousands of microcrystals to be screened in just a few hours.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Crystallization and crystal mounting
The lectin concanavalin A (ConA; UniProt entry P02866) contains 237 amino-acid residues with two methionines and binds one Mn2+ cation and one Ca2+ cation (Deacon et al., 1997). Crystals of ConA (Fluka product No. 61760, lot No. 420479/1) were grown within one week by the hanging-drop method from drops consisting of equal amounts of protein solution (1 µl; 10 mg ml−1 in water) and reservoir solution [1 µl; 34%(v/v) PEG 1500] buffered with 5 mM HEPES pH 6.0. Crystallization conditions that yielded showers of crystals with a maximum linear dimension of ∼20 µm or less were obtained starting from the conditions previously reported by Mueller-Dieckmann et al. (2005). ConA crystals were scooped directly from the crystallization drop onto a 25 µm MiTeGen mesh and were flash-cooled to 100 K in a gaseous stream of nitrogen (Fig. 1a). The crystals belonged to I222, with unit-cell parameters a = 61.6, b = 85.6, c = 88.8 Å.
2.2. Data collection and processing
Diffraction data were collected at 100 K using synchrotron radiation on the EMBL beamline P13 at the PETRA III storage ring, c/o DESY, Hamburg, Germany (Cianci et al., 2017; Table 1). P13 is equipped with an Arinax MD2 diffractometer (Perrakis, Cipriani et al., 1999; Bowler et al., 2010) featuring a 240 MHz PMAC CPU for fast grid scanning and a high-resolution CCD camera (GigE, 1/2′′, 1360 × 1024 pixels, colour) for the MD2 on-axis video microscope (Cipriani et al., 2007). The standard detector on P13 is a PILATUS 6M-F hybrid pixel-array detector (Dectris, Baden, Switzerland) with 450 µm sensor thickness and custom calibration tables for low energies (Marchal et al., 2011; Marchal & Wagner, 2011), which was operated in shutterless data-collection mode at the maximum frame rate of 25 Hz. An Amptek XR-100SDD fluorescence detector (Amptek, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA) was used to perform an scan on ConA crystals mounted on a test mesh and determined the Mn edge peak position. The peak position and the inflection points were determined at 6.549 and 6.545 keV, respectively. The Si(111) double-crystal monochromator was subsequently set to a wavelength of 1.892 Å (6.551 keV, close to the Mn edge at 6.549 keV) with an unattenuated X-ray of 1.36 × 1011 photons s−1 throughout the 15 µm collimator aperture, which was selected to match the average crystal size, and was used for both the mesh scans and the partial data-set collections.
|
Choosing a wavelength of 1.892 Å (Fig. 1b) increased the expected Bijvoet ratio for ConA to 2.1% from an expected value of 0.7% at 0.976 Å (12.6 keV, Se K edge), as calculated using the equation proposed for mixed-element anomalous scatterers by Olczak et al. (2003) via the ASSC (Anomalous Scattering Signal Calculator) web server (http://assc.p.lodz.pl/) and the ProtParam tool on the ExPASy web server (http://web.expasy.org/protparam/; Gasteiger et al., 2005).
The protocol applied for data collection has been described as Mesh&Collect (Zander et al., 2015). In our experiment, after being mounted on the goniometer head using the MARVIN sample changer available at the beamline (Cianci et al., 2017), each mesh was carefully aligned perpendicularly to the incoming photon beam. Using MXCuBE (Gabadinho et al., 2010), a grid was depicted over the MiTeGen mesh, with a periodicity of 15 µm selected according to the beam (Fig. 1c). The horizontal and vertical movements of the mesh with respect to the beam was via the two sampX and sampY motors, while no rotation of the goniometer axis was performed. Each grid point was then scored for diffraction using Dozor (Zander et al., 2015; Popov & Bourenkov, 2016) followed by the generation of a diffraction heat map (Bowler et al., 2010). The top ten maxima in the diffraction heat map were selected for the collection of partial data sets (±5°; Fig. 1d). All data were automatically integrated on-the-fly using XDS (Kabsch, 2010). When necessary, data sets were automatically re-indexed for consistency across all partial data sets using the REFERENCE_DATA_SET keyword in XDS. The choice of the partial data sets to be merged into a high-quality data set (Tables 2 and 3) was performed by the described in Zander et al. (2016) (Fig. 1e) to produce a final data set with good anomalous signal (Fig. 1f). SAD phasing was performed with SHELXC, SHELXD and SHELXE (Schneider & Sheldrick, 2002; Sheldrick, 2004, 2015; Fig. 1g). Ten rounds of autobuilding using ARP/wARP with sequence docking (Perrakis, Morris et al., 1999) and manual with REFMAC5 (Murshudov et al., 2011; Winn et al., 2011) and Coot (Emsley et al., 2010) gave R-factor and Rfree values of 0.15 and 0.184, respectively (Table 4, Figs. 1h and 2). Phase errors against the reference structures were computed in SHELXE.
|
|
‡Rfree is calculated using 5% of the total reflections that were randomly selected and excluded from §DPI = [Natoms/(Nrefl − Nparams)]1/2RDmaxC−1/3, where Natoms is the number of atoms included in the Nrefl is the number of reflections included in the R is the R factor, Dmax is the maximum resolution of the reflections included in the C is the completeness of the observed data and, for isotropic Nparams ≃ 4Natoms (Cruickshank, 1999). ¶Calculated with PHENIX (Adams et al., 2010). |
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Collection of partial data sets
Native SAD experiments are considered to be challenging and critically dependent on the collection of accurate data (Rose et al., 2015). Thus, we were interested in whether it was possible to collect small wedges of data from micrometre-sized crystals at a long wavelength in order to merge them and harness the anomalous signal from native anomalous scatterers to produce interpretable phases. The data-collection strategy was to enhance the expected Bijvoet ratio 〈ΔFanom〉/〈F〉 by choosing a wavelength of 1.892 Å at the Mn edge to increase the anomalous signal of Mn2+ and Ca2+ ions in the softer X-ray regime (Rose et al., 2015). Data were collected to the maximum resolution possible of 1.929 Å owing to the geometry of the camera and the wavelength.
The crystals were scooped directly from the drop using a grid as a support. The distribution of the crystals with a random orientation in many crystal arrays allows data collection over the complete ).
without the need for multi-axis goniometry, as shown by the high multiplicity and the high completeness seen in the data-collection statistics (Table 3For the grid scans and partial data-set collection, an unattenuated X-ray beam and the maximum detector frame rate of 25 Hz were used to make use of the full potential of beamlines at third-generation X-ray sources such as PETRA III at DESY.
A typical grid scan of 50 × 30 points covering a region of interest of 750 × 450 µm, with a 40 ms exposure time per point in shutterless operation, could be performed in about a minute (see Supplementary Movie) thanks to the highly optimized goniometer hardware and control software. The complete heat map was available shortly after each grid scan and, typically, the top ten points were used for data collection. The exposure time for each grid point was 40 ms, with a 11 photons s−1 at the Mn edge. This was equivalent to an X-ray dose of 0.04 MGy, which is equivalent to ∼0.2% of the Henderson limit, thus preserving most of the of the lifetime of the crystals for subsequent data collection.
of 1.36 × 10For the ConA crystals, with a size of ∼20 µm or less, we used a ±5° wedge (Table 1). Limiting the rotation range to a 10° wedge for each data-collection position reduces the requirements in terms of the sphere of confusion of the diffraction spindle, since for small overall rotations the crystal will not move out of the photon beam so that a two-dimensional centring is sufficient, as previously discussed by Zander et al. (2015). For each partial data-set collection, the overall exposure time was limited to 4 s with an unattenuated beam. According to calculations with RADDOSE (Paithankar et al., 2009), this was equivalent to an overall X-ray dose of about 4 MGy, or one fifth of the Henderson–Garman limit of 20 MGy (Henderson, 1990; Owen et al., 2006).
With a mesh scan taking 60 s and with an overall time per grid point of 4 s, data collection from a single grid, including the travelling time between data-collection positions, took less than 3 min when including overhead time owing to the sample changer. The data collection (30 grid scans for 298 partial data sets) was completed within 2 h. The autoprocessing routines could index and integrate 180 partial data sets out of the 298 that were collected. As the purpose of this experiment was to limit the manual intervention to the bare minimum at any step, the unindexed data sets were not considered further. Visual inspection of images that failed indexing revealed signs of multiple lattices. This problem can be ascribed to too dense a crystal distribution on the meshes and/or to cluster-grown crystals. The occurrence of such situations can in principle be minimized by dilution of the crystal droplets prior to scooping and by optimization of the crystal-growth conditions. Another possibility is to optimize the beam size to each single crystal before data collection, so as to avoid exposing multiple lattices to the X-ray beam.
3.2. Assembly of a full data set
The et al., 2016; Foos et al., 2018) has been developed for the production of high-quality data sets by combining partial data sets based on I/σ(I), CCano and CCoverall as quality indicators.
(ZanderIn brief, as described in Section 2.7 of Zander et al. (2016), GAs apply concepts of biological natural selection to maximize or minimize a target function. The problem being optimized is encoded into one or more chromosomes, which are contained in a population of randomly initialized individuals. Diversity is introduced into the population via random mutation and crossover events. A chromosome therefore simply describes how all of the sub-data sets should be divided into groups, with one sub-data set belonging only to one group. The GA algorithm then proceeds as follows: a population of individuals, each containing a single chromosome, is first randomly initialized (Fig. 1e) and then undergoes cycles of GA optimization by repeated selection, crossover between individuals, mutations and evaluations of fitness. The evaluation of individuals is performed by first scaling together all of the sub-data sets in the chromosome with the same group number with XSCALE (Kabsch, 2010). After XSCALE has been executed, data-quality statistics are parsed from the XSCALE.Lp file and a fitness is calculated as a combination of the inner-shell Rmeas value, the inner-shell 〈I/σ(I)〉, the outer-shell CC1/2 and the anomalous signal CCano according to the chosen weighting scheme to produce a single score for each group in the individual (Zander et al., 2016). It was discovered that convergence of the GA required a relatively large number of cycles and a larger population size than the default value. Therefore, a systematic gridding of parameter weights was deemed to be impractical. Instead, several values for each weight were chosen, and the combination that yielded the best merging statistics was chosen. CCanom overall was the primary sort criteria, followed by CC1/2 overall, then 〈I/σ(I)〉overall and finally Rmeas inner. The weights that were used for these statistics were 5, 300, 1000 and 100, respectively (Table 2). The target function is the sum of each statistical value multiplied by the respective weight. The Rmeas term, however, is 100 − Rmeas overall × Rweight (for more details of the weighting and target functions, see Foos et al., 2019). Finally, no cutoffs were required or applied for the minimum correlation or minimum Rmeas used to sort the data sets.
A complete run of the GA with the parameters reported in Table 2 took 17 h of wall-clock time on a ten-core machine. The aggregated data set, obtained from the merging of 116 partial data-set wedges, resulted in high overall completeness and decent data quality, which allowed the location of the anomalous scatterers, successful phasing and structure using standard methodology. The data-quality indicators show that it is possible to merge more than a hundred partial data sets collected using softer X-rays with excellent results and harness the anomalous signal (Fig. 1f). Merging GA-selected data yielded an excellent CC1/2 as well as 〈I/σ(I)〉 (Tables 2 and 3). The 〈I/σ(I)〉 value is within the expected range of 18–55 estimated as necessary for successful SAD phasing (Olczak & Cianci, 2018). Rmeas inner was 9.4% and Rmeas overall was 14.8% (Table 2). The mean anomalous differences divided by their standard deviation (SigAno in XSCALE) indicated the presence of anomalous signal up to 2.0 Å resolution (Fig. 1f), which was therefore chosen as the resolution cutoff for determination.
3.3. Structure solution
SHELXD correctly determined the Ca2+ and Mn2+ ions and the S atoms at the Met42 and Met129 sites, producing CCall, CCweak and PATFOM values of 34.2, 21.7 and 55.8, respectively. The anomalous difference Fourier map peak heights were 46σ for Mn2+, 27σ for Ca2+, 7.5σ for the Met129 SD atom and 6.3σ for the Met42 SD atom, as assigned using ANODE (Thorn & Sheldrick, 2011). Interpretable phases were obtained with SHELXE after two rounds of solvent flattening with one round of automatic chain tracing. A best phase error (wMPE) of 34° and a CC for the partial model of 22% were obtained in SHELXE, with 119 amino acids automatically built. A useful indicator of the validity of the anomalous atom sites for phasing is RCullis, which is defined as 〈|observed − calculated anomalous difference|〉/〈|observed anomalous difference|〉. For anomalous data an RCullis of less than 1 is considered to provide significant phasing information. The RCullis calculated using MLPHARE (Winn et al., 2011) starting from the Ca2+ and Mn2+ ions and the two S atoms from the methionine sites was 0.82. The RCullis values calculated starting from the Ca2+ ion or the Mn2+ ion alone were 0.90 and 0.89, respectively, indicating that in the case of proteins of analogous size but lacking cysteines or methionines a Ca2+ ion or the Mn2+ ion alone could provide significant phasing information.
Finally, no evidence of radiation damage was present in the electron-density maps for the
of ConA.4. Conclusions and perspectives
The linear dimensions of macromolecular crystals that are considered to be usable for X-ray data collection are continally becoming smaller and smaller, potentially reaching the point where crystals will be too small for optical centring and for individual data collection, but large enough to be detectable with low-dose X-ray centering and partial data-set collection. The availability of a high-intensity and well collimated beam, as on the P13 beamline (Cianci et al., 2017), permits tailoring of the beam size to the sample size thanks to variable apertures, thus minimizing the scattering background.
Here, we have shown that the automated Mesh&Collect data-collection scheme as implemented at EMBL Hamburg is capable of automatically (i) locating sub-20 µm crystals in a matrix mounted on a standard mounting mesh, (ii) ranking these crystals by diffraction strength and (iii) collecting small rotation data sets at long wavelength from the highest ranking crystals under X-ray dose conditions.
Furthermore, the GA algorithm can effectively generate a highly complete data set from hundreds of naturally multi-oriented samples collected at long wavelength, thus permitting the compilation of a highly complete data set with high multiplicity, and thus preserving a weak anomalous signal and enabling structure solution by standard SAD phasing procedures.
As it stands, data collection at P13 is considerably faster than the GA data selection and processing, so the GA cannot effectively be deployed as a diagnostic tool for stopping data collection at the exact structure-solution time point, since by then is it most likely that more data than are needed have already been collected. Further improvements in these directions could come from parallel data processing, but new detector technology (for example, the Dectris EIGER 4M pixel detector capable of collecting diffraction patterns at a frame rate of 750 Hz) will inevitably increase the demand in CPU power.
Further enhancements in data quality could be achieved with optimized mounts to reduce background noise (Romoli et al., 2014) and/or by tailoring the beam size and shape individually to each crystal to improve the signal to noise (Sanishvili et al., 2008; Fischetti et al., 2009). In summary, Mesh&Collect data collection using softer X-rays extends SAD phasing from naturally occurring anomalous scatterers to micrometre-sized crystals.
Supporting information
PDB reference: concanavalin A, 6h2m
Supplementary Movie. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S2059798319002031/ap5033sup1.mp4
Acknowledgements
We thank S. Fiedler (EMBL Hamburg) and the EMBL Hamburg Instrumentation Group for general support of the long-wavelength work. G. Bourenkov and I. Karpics (EMBL Hamburg) are thanked for implementation of Mesh&Collect on P13. The construction of beamline P13 was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF; grant No. DE/BMBF/05/ES7YE1 `Synchrotronstrahlführungen für strukturbiologische Forschung am PETRA III Speicherring') and by EMBL.
References
Adams, P. D., Afonine, P. V., Bunkóczi, G., Chen, V. B., Davis, I. W., Echols, N., Headd, J. J., Hung, L.-W., Kapral, G. J., Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W., McCoy, A. J., Moriarty, N. W., Oeffner, R., Read, R. J., Richardson, D. C., Richardson, J. S., Terwilliger, T. C. & Zwart, P. H. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 213–221. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Borek, D., Ginell, S. L., Cymborowski, M., Minor, W. & Otwinowski, Z. (2007). J. Synchrotron Rad. 14, 24–33. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Botha, S., Nass, K., Barends, T. R. M., Kabsch, W., Latz, B., Dworkowski, F., Foucar, L., Panepucci, E., Wang, M., Shoeman, R. L., Schlichting, I. & Doak, R. B. (2015). Acta Cryst. D71, 387–397. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Bowler, M. W., Guijarro, M., Petitdemange, S., Baker, I., Svensson, O., Burghammer, M., Mueller-Dieckmann, C., Gordon, E. J., Flot, D., McSweeney, S. M. & Leonard, G. A. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 855–864. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Chang, G. & Lewis, M. (1994). Acta Cryst. D50, 667–674. CrossRef CAS Web of Science IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Cherezov, V., Hanson, M. A., Griffith, M. T., Hilgart, M. C., Sanishvili, R., Nagarajan, V., Stepanov, S., Fischetti, R. F., Kuhn, P. & Stevens, R. C. (2009). J. R. Soc. Interface, 6, S587–S597. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Cianci, M., Bourenkov, G., Pompidor, G., Karpics, I., Kallio, J., Bento, I., Roessle, M., Cipriani, F., Fiedler, S. & Schneider, T. R. (2017). J. Synchrotron Rad. 24, 323–332. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Cianci, M., Groves, M. R., Barford, D. & Schneider, T. R. (2016). Acta Cryst. D72, 403–412. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Cipriani, F., Felisaz, F., Lavault, B., Brockhauser, S., Ravelli, R., Launer, L., Leonard, G. & Renier, M. (2007). AIP Conf. Proc. 879, 1928–1931. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Cruickshank, D. W. J. (1999). Acta Cryst. D55, 583–601. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Deacon, A., Gleichmann, T., Kalb (Gilboa), A. J., Price, H., Raftery, J., Bradbrook, G., Yariv, J. & Helliwell, J. R. (1997). Faraday Trans. 93, 4305–4312. Google Scholar
Djinović Carugo, K., Helliwell, J. R., Stuhrmann, H. & Weiss, M. S. (2005). J. Synchrotron Rad. 12, 410–419. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Emsley, P., Lohkamp, B., Scott, W. G. & Cowtan, K. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 486–501. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Fischetti, R. F., Xu, S., Yoder, D. W., Becker, M., Nagarajan, V., Sanishvili, R., Hilgart, M. C., Stepanov, S., Makarov, O. & Smith, J. L. (2009). J. Synchrotron Rad. 16, 217–225. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Foos, N., Cianci, M. & Nanao, M. H. (2019). Acta Cryst. D75, 200–210. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Gabadinho, J., Beteva, A., Guijarro, M., Rey-Bakaikoa, V., Spruce, D., Bowler, M. W., Brockhauser, S., Flot, D., Gordon, E. J., Hall, D. R., Lavault, B., McCarthy, A. A., McCarthy, J., Mitchell, E., Monaco, S., Mueller-Dieckmann, C., Nurizzo, D., Ravelli, R. B. G., Thibault, X., Walsh, M. A., Leonard, G. A. & McSweeney, S. M. (2010). J. Synchrotron Rad. 17, 700–707. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Gasteiger, E., Hoogland, C., Gattiker, A., Duvaud, S., Wilkins, M. R., Appel, R. D. & Bairoch, A. (2005). The Proteomics Protocols Handbook, edited by J. M. Walker, pp. 571–607. Totowa: Humana Press. Google Scholar
Gati, C., Bourenkov, G., Klinge, M., Rehders, D., Stellato, F., Oberthür, D., Yefanov, O., Sommer, B. P., Mogk, S., Duszenko, M., Betzel, C., Schneider, T. R., Chapman, H. N. & Redecke, L. (2014). IUCrJ, 1, 87–94. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Helliwell, J. R. (1988). J. Cryst. Growth, 90, 259–272. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
Henderson, R. (1990). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 241, 6–8. CAS Google Scholar
International Tables for Crystallography (2012). Vol. F, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley. Google Scholar
Kabsch, W. (2010). Acta Cryst. D66, 125–132. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Kissinger, C. R., Gehlhaar, D. K. & Fogel, D. B. (1999). Acta Cryst. D55, 484–491. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Liu, Q., Dahmane, T., Zhang, Z., Assur, Z., Brasch, J., Shapiro, L., Mancia, F. & Hendrickson, W. A. (2012). Science, 336, 1033–1037. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Liu, Z.-J., Chen, L., Wu, D., Ding, W., Zhang, H., Zhou, W., Fu, Z.-Q. & Wang, B.-C. (2011). Acta Cryst. A67, 544–549. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Marchal, J., Luethi, B., Ursachi, C., Mykhaylyk, V. & Wagner, A. (2011). J. Instrum. 6, C11033. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Marchal, J. & Wagner, A. (2011). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 633, S121–S124. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
McNicholas, S., Potterton, E., Wilson, K. S. & Noble, M. E. M. (2011). Acta Cryst. D67, 386–394. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Mueller-Dieckmann, C., Panjikar, S., Tucker, P. A. & Weiss, M. S. (2005). Acta Cryst. D61, 1263–1272. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Murshudov, G. N., Skubák, P., Lebedev, A. A., Pannu, N. S., Steiner, R. A., Nicholls, R. A., Winn, M. D., Long, F. & Vagin, A. A. (2011). Acta Cryst. D67, 355–367. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Nanao, M. H., Sheldrick, G. M. & Ravelli, R. B. G. (2005). Acta Cryst. D61, 1227–1237. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Olczak, A. & Cianci, M. (2018). Crystallogr. Rev. 24, 73–101. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Olczak, A., Cianci, M., Hao, Q., Rizkallah, P. J., Raftery, J. & Helliwell, J. R. (2003). Acta Cryst. A59, 327–334. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Owen, R. L., Rudiño-Piñera, E. & Garman, E. F. (2006). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 4912–4917. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Paithankar, K. S., Owen, R. L. & Garman, E. F. (2009). J. Synchrotron Rad. 16, 152–162. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Perrakis, A., Cipriani, F., Castagna, J.-C., Claustre, L., Burghammer, M., Riekel, C. & Cusack, S. (1999). Acta Cryst. D55, 1765–1770. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Perrakis, A., Morris, R. & Lamzin, V. (1999). Nature Struct. Biol. 6, 458–463. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Popov, A. N. & Bourenkov, G. (2016). Dozor. European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, Grenoble, France. Google Scholar
Ravelli, R. B. G. & Garman, E. F. (2006). Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 16, 624–629. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Ravelli, R. B. G., Leiros, H. K., Pan, B., Caffrey, M. & McSweeney, S. (2003). Structure, 11, 217–224. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Ravelli, R. B. G. & McSweeney, S. M. (2000). Structure, 8, 315–328. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Romoli, F., Mossou, E., Cuypers, M., van der Linden, P., Carpentier, P., Mason, S. A., Forsyth, V. T. & McSweeney, S. (2014). Acta Cryst. F70, 681–684. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Rose, J. P., Wang, B.-C. & Weiss, M. S. (2015). IUCrJ, 2, 431–440. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Sanishvili, R., Nagarajan, V., Yoder, D., Becker, M., Xu, S., Corcoran, S., Akey, D. L., Smith, J. L. & Fischetti, R. F. (2008). Acta Cryst. D64, 425–435. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Schneider, T. R. (2002). Acta Cryst. D58, 195–208. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Schneider, T. R. & Sheldrick, G. M. (2002). Acta Cryst. D58, 1772–1779. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Sheldrick, G. M. (2004). High-Throughput Phasing with SHELXC/D/E. Göttingen: University of Göttingen. Google Scholar
Sheldrick, G. M. (2015). Acta Cryst. C71, 3–8. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Smith, J. L., Fischetti, R. F. & Yamamoto, M. (2012). Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 22, 602–612. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Stellato, F., Oberthür, D., Liang, M., Bean, R., Gati, C., Yefanov, O., Barty, A., Burkhardt, A., Fischer, P., Galli, L., Kirian, R. A., Meyer, J., Panneerselvam, S., Yoon, C. H., Chervinskii, F., Speller, E., White, T. A., Betzel, C., Meents, A. & Chapman, H. N. (2014). IUCrJ, 1, 204–212. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Thorn, A. & Sheldrick, G. M. (2011). J. Appl. Cryst. 44, 1285–1287. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Uervirojnangkoorn, M., Hilgenfeld, R., Terwilliger, T. C. & Read, R. J. (2013). Acta Cryst. D69, 2039–2049. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Warren, A. J., Armour, W., Axford, D., Basham, M., Connolley, T., Hall, D. R., Horrell, S., McAuley, K. E., Mykhaylyk, V., Wagner, A. & Evans, G. (2013). Acta Cryst. D69, 1252–1259. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Winn, M. D., Ballard, C. C., Cowtan, K. D., Dodson, E. J., Emsley, P., Evans, P. R., Keegan, R. M., Krissinel, E. B., Leslie, A. G. W., McCoy, A., McNicholas, S. J., Murshudov, G. N., Pannu, N. S., Potterton, E. A., Powell, H. R., Read, R. J., Vagin, A. & Wilson, K. S. (2011). Acta Cryst. D67, 235–242. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Zander, U., Bourenkov, G., Popov, A. N., de Sanctis, D., Svensson, O., McCarthy, A. A., Round, E., Gordeliy, V., Mueller-Dieckmann, C. & Leonard, G. A. (2015). Acta Cryst. D71, 2328–2343. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Zander, U., Cianci, M., Foos, N., Silva, C. S., Mazzei, L., Zubieta, C., de Maria, A. & Nanao, M. H. (2016). Acta Cryst. D72, 1026–1035. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.