research papers
C-phycocyanin as a highly attractive model system in protein crystallography: unique crystallization properties and packing-diversity screening
aCentre for Free-Electron Laser Science, DESY, Notkestrasse 85, 22607 Hamburg, Germany, bHelmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie, Albert-Einstein-Strasse 15, 12489 Berlin, Germany, cLaboratory for Structural Biology of Infection and Inflammation, Universität Hamburg, Notkestrasse 85, 22607 Hamburg, Germany, dHamburg Centre for Ultrafast Imaging, Universität Hamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149, 22607 Hamburg, Germany, eDepartment of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA, and fDepartment of Physics, Universität Hamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149, 22607 Hamburg, Germany
*Correspondence e-mail: iosifina.sarrou@cfel.de
The unique crystallization properties of the antenna protein C-phycocyanin (C-PC) from the thermophilic cyanobacterium Thermosynechococcus elongatus are reported and discussed. C-PC crystallizes in hundreds of significantly different conditions within a broad pH range and in the presence of a wide variety of precipitants and additives. Remarkably, the crystal dimensions vary from a few micrometres, as used in serial crystallography, to several hundred micrometres, with a very diverse crystal morphology. More than 100 unique single-crystal X-ray diffraction data sets were collected from randomly selected crystals and analysed. The addition of small-molecule additives revealed three new crystal packings of C-PC, which are discussed in detail. The high propensity of this protein to crystallize, combined with its natural blue colour and its fluorescence characteristics, make it an excellent candidate as a superior and highly adaptable model system in crystallography. C-PC can be used in technical and methods development approaches for X-ray and neutron diffraction techniques, and as a system for comprehending the fundamental principles of protein crystallography.
PDB references: C-phycocyanin, P63, 1.45 Å resolution, 6yqg; 1.8 Å resolution, 6yq8; space group R32, 1.29 Å resolution, 6ypq; space group P21212, 2.1 Å resolution, 6yyj
1. Introduction
Protein X-ray crystallographic techniques have been used extensively to determine static macromolecular structures and also to analyse protein dynamics (Liebschner, 2018; Spence, 2017). Hence, high-quality protein crystals are necessary to achieve electron-density maps of high resolution and high confidence, which allow the study of molecular mechanisms and of the function and interactions of biomacromolecules (Liebschner, 2018; Chayen, 2009).
Protein crystallization is a multi-parametric process and depends on several factors, including protein concentration, sample purity, temperature, pH value, precipitant, buffers, additives, detergents, force fields and pressure, which can be visualized in multi-dimensional phase diagrams (Chayen et al., 1992; Chayen, 2009; Rupp, 2010; McPherson & Cudney, 2006). Protein crystal nucleation is described as a multi-step process with the early formation of a dense liquid protein phase, which precedes the growth of a rigid nucleus (Sauter et al., 2015).
The most popular approach to initial crystallization trials applies sparse-matrix screens of 96 different conditions at a time, which are subsequently refined according to the successful hits (Chayen, 2009; Rupp, 2010). However, it is challenging to identify those crystallization conditions that yield high-quality diffracting crystals (Chayen & Saridakis, 2008). It is not feasible to make a prediction, based on the chemical and physical properties of a protein, of the conditions required to crystallize it, even with efforts to monitor and actively influence the crystallization process (Falke & Betzel, 2019). Changes in a single experimental parameter can simultaneously affect several aspects of a crystallization experiment (Chayen, 2009). Many efforts, over decades, have aimed at improving the success of crystallization experiments and the resulting crystal size (Rupp, 2010; McPherson & Cudney, 2006). However, the success of crystallization methods widely depends on trial and error (DePristo et al., 2004; Groot et al., 1998).
Moreover, methods development in macromolecular X-ray crystallography often depends upon the use of easy-to-handle proteins that are highly stable and available in bulk amounts, such as insulin, proteinase K and hen egg-white lysozyme. The crystallization abilities of the latter protein have been well studied, involving different space groups, crystal morphologies and sizes for the development of multiple applications (Panjikar et al., 2015; Meents et al., 2017; Haas, 2020).
This study focuses on examining the robust crystallization of C-phycocyanin (C-PC), which is almost independent of the composition of the crystallization solution, and investigating the resulting crystal morphology, molecular packing and crystal quality. Several crystal structures of the cyanobacterial antenna protein C-PC (Nield et al., 2003; Adir et al., 2002) have already been reported and information on selected C-PC structures from various cyanobacteria is shown in Supplementary Table S1.
This study demonstrates that C-PC from Thermosynechococcus elongatus, purified using a highly efficient one-column purification protocol, can be crystallized using hundreds of diverse crystallization solutions in numerous crystal symmetries at different pH values and with additives. Various crystal morphologies can be recognized, from which several dozen high-resolution X-ray diffraction data sets have been collected. Different crystal packings were observed when small drug-like molecules were present in the crystallization solutions. An in-depth analysis of these molecular assemblies will be helpful in comprehending the uncommon crystallization behaviour of native C-PC.
The antenna protein C-PC appears to be an essential sample for methods development in protein crystallography. In combination with their optical properties, blue colour and strong fluorescence, C-PC crystals may inspire new applications and studies in biomolecular crystallography.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Purification, characterization in solution and crystallization of C-PC
C-PC from T. elongatus was isolated based on a protocol previously described elsewhere (Nield et al., 2003) with an additional step using a DEAE column equilibrated with 20 mM MES pH 6.5 or 20 mM Tris pH 8.0 (depending on the downstream crystallization experiment) and mounted on an ÄKTA purifier (GE Healthcare, USA). Every litre of cell culture produces 1 g of wet cells, resulting in approximately 8 mg purified C-PC.
When studied at pH 4.0, the protein was dialyzed against 20 mM sodium acetate, 100 mM NaCl.
CD spectroscopy experiments were performed to verify the overall folding and secondary-structure composition of C-PC in different buffers using a Jasco J-810 spectrometer (Jasco, UK). Spectra of pure C-PC (0.1 mg ml−1) were recorded in the far-UV wavelength range between 195 and 240 nm at 20°C using a 1 mm path-length quartz cell with a scanning speed of 100 nm min−1. The obtained spectra provide a fingerprint of the secondary-structure composition of C-PC. Ellipticity values were scaled and provided as the mean molar ellipticity (MME). Ten spectra were averaged.
The dispersity and
of the protein in solutions at different pH values was verified via infrared dynamic (IR-DLS) using a DynaPro NanoStar instrument (Wyatt Instruments, USA) equipped with a 785 nm wavelength laser. C-PC naturally has a strong absorption maximum at approximately 600 nm and fluorescence at about 640 nm. The optical properties of C-PC are taken into account when the protein is studied in solution and the crystalline form.Prior to crystallization, C-PC was dialyzed against the respective M NaCl. The protein buffer concentration was limited to 20 mM in order to maximize the effect of extreme pH values of the crystallization solutions after mixing.
buffer supplemented with 100 mThe protein was concentrated using Amicon Centricon YM-10 centrifugal filters at 1500g to a final concentration of 15 mg ml−1.
The crystallization experiments were set up manually in 96-well plates (MRC 2-well; Jena Bioscience) using the commercially available screens JCSG-plus, Morpheus, Morpheus 3, Pi-Minimal, PACT, SG1, PGA and Midas from Molecular Dimensions and Jena Bioscience. In each sitting-drop vapour-diffusion experiment, 1 µl protein solution was mixed with 1 µl reservoir solution and incubated against 50 µl reservoir solution. Crystallization plates were incubated at 22°C and automatically imaged by second-order nonlinear imaging of chiral crystals (SONICC; Formulatrix, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA).
The presence of crystalline material (>1 µm) was verified in each crystallization drop using SONICC. This second-harmonic generation (SHG) imaging relies on a nonlinear optical process of ). The UV-TPEF (ultraviolet two-photon excited fluorescence) method is analogous to classical UV fluorescence and generates images based on the fluorescence of UV-excited aromatic amino acids.
in chiral non-centrosymmetric crystals to provide information on the crystallinity (Boyd, 2008All crystals obtained grew to full size within two days or less, with various sizes and different shapes. Unless the crystallization condition contained a cryoprotectant, crystals were briefly washed with a cryoprotectant solution containing the mother liquor supplemented with 25% PEG 400 before flash-cooling in liquid nitrogen.
2.2. Data collection
Diffraction data were collected from single crystals on beamline P11 at the PETRA III electron-storage ring, DESY, Hamburg, using a PILATUS3 S 6M detector. All data were collected as non-overlapping 0.1° oscillation images, indexed and integrated with XDSAPP (Sparta et al., 2016), and scaled with AIMLESS from the CCP4 suite (Winn et al., 2011). A statistically significant value for CC1/2 (Karplus & Diederichs, 2012) in the highest resolution shell was chosen as a cutoff criterion respecting the completeness of the data. Indexing parameters are summarized in Supplementary Tables S2 and S3. Collected raw diffraction images are publicly available via https://proteindiffraction.org/.
2.3. and refinement
The crystal structures of C-PC were determined by phenix.phaser (Liebschner et al., 2019) using a heterodimer extracted from PDB entry 1jbo (Nield et al., 2003) as a search model. Iterative automated was carried out with phenix.refine (Liebschner et al., 2019), and manual adjustments and model optimization were performed by hand in Coot (Emsley et al., 2010). Structural coordinates have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank with accession codes 6yyj (space group P21212), 6yq8 (space group P63, larger unit cell), 6yqg (space group P63, smaller unit cell) and 6ypq (space group R32). Data-collection and are also summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
with
|
|
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Purification of C-PC and characterization in solution
Before the crystallization experiments, C-PC was purified to ). As observed using IR-DLS measurements, prior to crystallization, with C-PC at pH 4.0, 6.5 and 8.0, the hydrodynamic radius is significantly increased at pH 4.0 with increased polydispersity. C-PC in solution at pH 8.0, 6.5 and 4.0 showed hydrodynamic radii of 4.2 nm (12% polydispersity), 4.8 nm (32% polydispersity) and 6.3 nm (40% polydispersity), respectively.
and characterized in solution using CD spectroscopy to verify the folding and DLS to investigate the solution dispersity (Fig. 1Interestingly, after 72 h, in the protein solution at pH 4.0 particles with lattice order and diameters in the range 4–20 µm appeared; this was not the case for the protein at pH 6.5 and pH 8.0. These micrometre-sized particles were indeed identified as crystalline material. Diffraction data of self-assembled crystals were collected by a serial crystallography approach using a porous polyimide support (Feiler et al., 2019; Supplementary Figs. S1c and S1d), the results will be published elsewhere in more detail. Therefore, we conclude that lower pH values promote the crystallization of C-PC via auto-assembly. The higher percentage of crystallization conditions providing crystals when the protein was buffered at pH 6.5 instead of pH 8.0 would be consistent with these results. The particular reasons for the self-assembly of C-PC towards crystalline particles at lower pH are still under investigation and might be connected to the in vivo function of C-PC, since phycobilosomes are naturally organized into rods attached to the thylakoid membrane in cyanobacteria and algae (Blankenship, 2015).
Based on these results, crystallization setups were focused on using C-PC buffered at pH 8.0 and pH 6.5.
3.2. Crystallization experiments
The crystallization plates were automatically imaged at 22°C and two types of image data were recorded: visible and SHG (Supplementary Figs. S3 and S4). A numerical summary of the imaging results depending on the screen is shown in Table 3. The values refer to the total number of conditions with visible crystals or microcrystals which showed SHG signal. To avoid false positives, plates were imaged by UV-TPEF to confirm that the SHG-positive crystals are indeed protein crystals, especially in the case of microcrystals (Supplementary Fig. S2). Since the laser illumination for the imaging causes damage to the protein crystals owing to local heating, the exposure was limited to the default value in order to proceed to X-ray single-crystal experiments.
|
C-PC in MES buffer pH 6.5 was screened using eight commercially available screens (Table 3), i.e. testing a total number of 786 different crystallization conditions. After 48 h, crystals could be detected in 724 crystallization conditions covering 92% of all conditions tested. For comparison, C-PC in Tris buffer pH 8.0 was screened against four commercial screens (Table 3), i.e. 384 individual conditions were tested. After two days, the plates were inspected and crystals could be detected in 291 conditions that were cross-verified with the SHG signal. All of the imaging results under visible light and SHG of the 96-well plates are shown in Supplementary Figs. S3 and S4.
In total, this experiment exhibited protein crystals in more than 1000 different conditions, which appeared in different morphologies and sizes. The details of the statistics for the eight screens with C-PC at pH 6.5 are shown in Fig. 2. While most of the conditions foster the formation of crystals in general, the maximum resolution and other parameters depend on the individual compositions of the crystallization solution. Furthermore, the screens show large differences in the morphologies and sizes of the crystals. For example, in the PACT screen, which contains PEG in all conditions, there is a majority of hits with hexagonal crystals over hits with needle- or feather-like shapes. However, the different crystal morphologies could neither be correlated with the pH value of the crystallization condition nor with the precipitant. It has not been possible to correlate a specific chemical component with a specific morphology, as attempted in other cases (He et al., 2020), as several widely different conditions result in the same morphology. On the other hand, one specific crystallization solution (e.g. PGA condition B9, Midas condition C6) can also result in a mixture of crystals with significantly different morphology in the same droplet but, as far as we analyzed, with the same and molecular packing. Therefore, in contrast to other cases (Frey et al., 1991), the morphology also does not seem to indicate an individual and packing. For some conditions, however, we saw that crystals with different morphologies appeared in the same droplet after significantly different incubation times. This might lead to the very general assumption that the morphology is determined by a combination of the initial crystallization solution composition, which determines, for example, a specific second virial coefficient, and the growth speed, which is affected by the local protein concentration at a specific time of incubation.
These unique properties of the crystal formation of C-PC will provide valuable information for future studies of protein crystallogenesis (Lorber, 2005). It is worth mentioning that similar morphologies with size variations and a dependency on the screen were observed in the trays where the protein was purified at pH 8.0 (Supplementary Fig. S5). Examples portraying the different crystal morphologies observed at 20°C are shown in Fig. 3.
3.3. Data collection
A few hundred crystals with sizes larger than 70 µm were picked and cryocooled in liquid nitrogen after incubation for a few seconds in a cryoprotectant solution that consisted of the mother liquor supplemented with cryoprotectant when necessary. The crystals were selected from 12 screens, as shown in Table 3. We checked more than 200 different crystals for diffraction. Table 4 contains examples of the diverse crystallization conditions which resulted in crystals that diffracted to high resolution. With various combinations of precipitants and pH values, C-PC produces crystals with the same symmetry. Table 5 summarizes the properties of 118 individually collected data sets. The outcome of the data-collection analysis is presented in Supplementary Tables S2 and S3.
|
|
It is worth mentioning that 41 individual crystals diffracted to a resolution of higher than 1.2 Å, which improves the highest maximum resolution of a cyanobacterial C-phycocyanin structure reported to date, which is 1.35 Å (PDB entry 3o18; David et al., 2011). More than 70% of all data collected extended to a resolution of better than 1.5 Å, and 95% extended to better than 2 Å resolution (Supplementary Fig. S6). This outcome is very likely to be owing to the high purity of C-PC produced using the modified purification method (see Section 2 and Fig. 1).
Analysis of these results shows that C-PC assembly is not affected by the crystallization conditions. The protein crystallizes in a particular and Supplementary Tables S2 and S3). This effect was previously concealed and, remarkably, the tendency of C-PC to preferentially crystallize in R32 is unexpected. Compared with well characterized crystal model systems, such as hen egg-white lysozyme, for which a vast number of symmetries have been reported, C-PC prefers to crystallize with R32 symmetry. As mentioned earlier, the purified protein can self-assemble into nanosized structures in solution. This effect is very likely to promote crystal nucleation and to act as a seed during crystal growth. Since phycobilosomes are naturally organized in the cells (Blankenship, 2015), the in vivo C-PC assembly exhibits a tricylindrical core, from which six rods composed of three PC hexamers radiate, in order to assemble superior rigid antenna-like structures to expand light harvesting (Wang & Moerner, 2015).
independent of the pH value or the precipitants, whether for example high salt, PEG or ethanol are present (examples are provided in Table 43.4. Crystal packing and symmetries
Amongst the diffraction data sets that were collected and analysed, there are distinct variations in the crystal packing and the symmetry. As summarized in Table 5, for the majority of the data that were collected and analysed, C-PC crystallizes in high-symmetry space groups. More precisely, there are four different space groups. The majority of all crystals belong to the rhombohedral R32 (Fig. 4). The hexagonal was also found, with two different unit cells, referred to as P63-large and P63-small (Figs. 5 and 6), as was the orthorhombic P21212 (Fig. 7). The latter was only observed once among the data sets collected. The crystallization conditions for each of the data sets are given in Supplementary Tables S2 and S3. Interestingly, the addition of small drug-like molecules such as cholic acid derivatives, an anaesthetic mixture or amino acids (Gorrec, 2009, 2015; Blundell, 2017) led to the formation of new crystal packing and novel high-resolution crystal structures of C-PC, as shown and explained in Figs. 5, 6 and 7.
The crystal contacts in P63-small are solely mediated between the α-subunits along the ab unit-cell plane and are arranged across the α- and β-subunits along the c axis, as shown in Fig. 5(a). Interestingly, the packing along the latter axis is also supported by a ligand, tetracaine, which was picked up from the crystallization conditions. It binds mostly via water-mediated hydrogen bonds in the cleft between the α- and β-units of the two molecular crystal planes. This particular molecule allows the formation of this specific packing as it occupies the binding site, enabling, for instance, the assembly of the dodecameric, doughnut-shaped structure that is observed in the rhombohedral and orthorhombic space groups (Fig. 5a). This packing allows the generation of a solvent channel spanning the protein crystal. A loop region (Fig. 5b) responsible for binding one of the covalent cofactors and another moderately rigid structure contributes to the formation of this approximately 20 Å wide pore (Figs. 5c and 5d).
In contrast to the P63-small the arrangement of the molecules is slightly altered within the P63-large The tetrameric ring structure remains the same as a building block, but the packing is different (Figs. 5c and 6a). The crystal contacts are mediated by both the α- and β-subunits in each direction (Fig. 6d). The linearly stacked rings form a tube-like structure (Figs. 6c and 6d). The open, accessible solvent channels have a diameter of about 70 Å and permit the diffusion of average-sized macromolecules such as throughout the crystal (Erickson, 2009; Lukatsky & Shakhnovich, 2008), as depicted in Figs. 6(a) and 6(c). In the orthorhombic P21212 (Fig. 7) the α-subunits solely mediate crystal contacts within the ab plane, and the β-subunit connects the doughnut-shaped rings in the c direction.
As discussed above, the addition of small molecules to the crystallization experiments creates different symmetries. The addition of an anaesthetic P63 can be recognized, with the additive molecule clearly visible in the electron density of the P63-small structure.
mixture reshaped the pattern of preferred crystal contacts and thereby altered the crystal packing. As a result, two distinct unit cells inAnalysis of the crystal packing in both hexameric space groups reveals a ring structure. As shown in Figs. 5 and 6, this is not surprising owing to the nature of the phycobilosomes and previously reported phycocyanin structures (Supplementary Table S1). In detail, the crystal interfaces between the staggered rings cover 5000 and 7180 Å2, with a buried-to-exposed surface ratio of 0.3 (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. S8). These interfaces are specific and contribute about 50 kcal mol−1 per interaction and might be one driving force for this type of crystal packing. This denser packing is also reflected in the increased buried surface area as compared using the regular hexagonal building block (Supplementary Fig. S8, Fig. 8).
In contrast, the structures determined in the rhombohedral and orthorhombic space groups compose a stable dodecameric molecule. Two hexameric rings associate turned towards each other into a doughnut-shaped 2, with a ratio of surface-exposed versus buried area of almost 1 (Fig. 6 and Supplementary Fig. S8). The free energy for the assembly is calculated to be approximately 500 kcal mol−1 and indicates another driving force for this large stable tertiary assembly (Supplementary Fig. S7). This has not been seen in the crystal packing of any C-PC and is very likely to be connected to the natural assembly of the phycobilosome rods, although this assumption needs further in-depth investigation using other methods.
The interaction surface area covers more than 61 000 ÅThe conventionally quantified ratio of buried and solvent-accessible exposed surface area (ASA; Lee & Richards, 1971) showed a significant difference amongst the C-PC protein structures (Fig. 8). The ASA ratio in these assemblies increases, which is also a driving force in addition to the large gain in solvation free-energy gain upon the arrangement of these larger molecular structures (Fig. 8 and Supplementary Fig. S8). The specific packing of the C-PC molecules in each case might be correlated with the natural activity of C-PC as a light-harvesting antenna. Similarly, other proteins, for example chaperones or crystallines, alter their oligomeric state depending on their role in activity and their physiological environment (Jaenicke, 1996; Fu et al., 2003; Libonati & Gotte, 2004).
In order to examine any structural changes in the area of the phycocyanobilin, we compared the region of the blue chromophore in all of the structures (Supplementary Table S4). In the small hexagonal (P63-small), the molecular assembly of the two chains is kinked by about 6° from the chains of the structural models and the cofactor position differs by 2.8 Å from that in the other three structure (labelled 2 in Supplementary Figs. S9b and S9c). Despite this minor difference, the overall position of phycocyanobilin and the orientation of the intrinsic ligands to the respective hosts is similar in all models.
Summarizing, C-PC crystallizes in a vast number of significantly different conditions. The addition of small molecules, termed additives, gives rise to the variety of observed crystal packings. Despite the different symmetry, no notable modulation of the protein structures could be detected. This is in agreement with the observations reported for other proteins, in which changes in their et al., 2008).
state are correlated with their activity (JiangIn conclusion, the mechanisms of protein crystal packing are complex and unclear, and the effects of additives are generally not well understood (Luo et al., 2018; Carugo et al., 2017). In this study, we discuss the unique crystallization behaviour of C-phycocyanin, which includes effortless high-quality crystal formation with the majority of available crystallization precipitants. The effect of additives and the variation of crystal packing offers a simple new system for future in-depth investigations of protein crystallization mechanisms.
4. Applications and outlook
C-phycocyanin easily produces well diffracting crystals with many morphologies, sizes and symmetries.
The molecular packing within the large P63 with large and open solvent channels extending over the crystalline material, could become a scaffold to accompany foreign protein molecules and facilitate the accommodation of passenger proteins in pores (Fig. 7). Consequently, crystals in this may become an additional tool for studying the existing scaffolds of highly porous protein crystals (Stura et al., 2002; Kowalski et al., 2019).
Protein crystals are routinely used, for example in technical beam alignment, detector calibration, the delivery and injection testing of crystal suspensions, investigation of the crystallization process, phasing techniques, analysing protein dynamics on a short time scale, for educational purposes and more (Haas, 2020; Yip & Ward, 1996; Norrman et al., 2006; Olieric et al., 2007). Most of the proteins used for methods development in protein crystallography research are available for purchase in large amounts produced from animals, unless produced recombinantly (Kim et al., 2019). C-PC is produced by cyanobacteria, which grow more rapidly and are less nutritionally demanding (Yu et al., 2015), and is purified using a one-column purification protocol. As one of many valuable biomolecules produced with a minimal amount of waste, it can provide crystallographers with an excellent multipurpose sample with possibilities to modify the molecular packing of crystals.
Finally, we suggest that C-PC may have applications in intermolecular cross-linking, a variety of assays and also in passenger `guest' molecule imaging (Snapp, 2005). The rigid compact α-helical folding and may stabilize otherwise unstable proteins or support the accommodation of small molecules (Vyncke et al., 2019; Ernst et al., 2019). The advantageous naturally bright colour and intrinsic fluorescence make the unambiguous identification of C-PC protein crystals very convenient, particularly in experiments utilizing and scoring microcrystals (Meents et al., 2017).
5. Related literature
The following references are cited in the supporting information for this article: Lieske et al. (2019).
Supporting information
PDB references: C-phycocyanin, P63, 1.45 Å resolution, 6yqg; 1.8 Å resolution, 6yq8; space group R32, 1.29 Å resolution, 6ypq; space group P21212, 2.1 Å resolution, 6yyj
Supplementary Figures and Tables. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S2059798320016071/nj5298sup1.pdf
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge DESY (Hamburg, Germany), a member of the Helmholtz Association HGF. Parts of this research were carried out on beamline P11 of the PETRA III facility. Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
References
Adir, N., Vainer, R. & Lerner, N. (2002). Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1556, 168–174. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Blankenship, R. E. (2015). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 13751–13752. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Blundell, T. L. (2017). IUCrJ, 4, 308–321. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Boyd, R. W. (2008). Nonlinear Optics, 3rd ed., pp. 1–67. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Carugo, O., Blatova, O. A., Medrish, E. O., Blatov, V. A. & Proserpio, D. M. (2017). Sci. Rep. 7, 13209. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Chayen, N. E. (2009). Adv. Protein Chem. Struct. Biol. 77, 1–22. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Chayen, N. E. & Saridakis, E. (2008). Nat. Methods, 5, 147–153. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Chayen, N. E., Shaw Stewart, P. D. & Blow, D. M. (1992). J. Cryst. Growth, 122, 176–180. CrossRef CAS Web of Science Google Scholar
David, L., Marx, A. & Adir, N. (2011). J. Mol. Biol. 405, 201–213. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
DePristo, M. A., de Bakker, P. I. W. & Blundell, T. L. (2004). Structure, 12, 831–838. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS 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
Erickson, H. P. (2009). Biol. Proced. Online, 11, 32–51. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Ernst, P., Plückthun, A. & Mittl, P. R. E. (2019). Sci. Rep. 9, 15199. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Falke, S. & Betzel, C. (2019). Radiation in Bioanalysis: Spectroscopic Techniques and Theoretical Methods, edited by A. S. Pereira, P. Tavares & P. Limão-Vieira, pp. 173–193. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Google Scholar
Feiler, C. G., Wallacher, D. & Weiss, M. S. (2019). J. Vis. Exp., e59722. Google Scholar
Frey, M., Genovesio-Taverne, J.-C. & Fontecilla-Camps, J. C. (1991). J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 24, 105–110. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Fu, X., Liu, C., Liu, Y., Feng, X., Gu, L., Chen, X. & Chang, Z. (2003). Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 310, 412–420. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Gorrec, F. (2009). J. Appl. Cryst. 42, 1035–1042. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Gorrec, F. (2015). Acta Cryst. F71, 831–837. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Groot, B. L. de, Hayward, S., van Aalten, D. M. F., Amadei, A. & Berendsen, H. J. C. (1998). Proteins, 31, 116–127. PubMed Google Scholar
Haas, D. J. (2020). IUCrJ, 7, 148–157. CrossRef CAS PubMed IUCr Journals Google Scholar
He, H., Chen, L., Wang, Z., Zhang, L., Ge, T., Xiang, X., Wang, S., Huang, Y. & Li, S. (2020). Cryst. Growth Des. 20, 6877–6887. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Jaenicke, R. (1996). FASEB J. 10, 84–92. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Jiang, J., Zhang, X., Chen, Y., Wu, Y., Zhou, Z. H., Chang, Z. & Sui, S.-F. (2008). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 11939–11944. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Karplus, P. A. & Diederichs, K. (2012). Science, 336, 1030–1033. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kim, S. W., Less, J. F., Wang, L., Yan, T., Kiron, V., Kaushik, S. J. & Lei, X. G. (2019). Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 7, 221–243. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kowalski, A. E., Johnson, L. B., Dierl, H. K., Park, S., Huber, T. R. & Snow, C. D. (2019). Biomater. Sci. 7, 1898–1904. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Krissinel, E. & Henrick, K. (2007). J. Mol. Biol. 372, 774–797. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Lee, B. & Richards, F. M. (1971). J. Mol. Biol. 55, 379–400. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Libonati, M. & Gotte, G. (2004). Biochem. J. 380, 311–327. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Liebschner, D. (2018). Acta Cryst. F74, 74–75. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Liebschner, D., Afonine, P. V., Baker, M. L., Bunkóczi, G., Chen, V. B., Croll, T. I., Hintze, B., Hung, L.-W., Jain, S., McCoy, A. J., Moriarty, N. W., Oeffner, R. D., Poon, B. K., Prisant, M. G., Read, R. J., Richardson, J. S., Richardson, D. C., Sammito, M. D., Sobolev, O. V., Stockwell, D. H., Terwilliger, T. C., Urzhumtsev, A. G., Videau, L. L., Williams, C. J. & Adams, P. D. (2019). Acta Cryst. D75, 861–877. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Lieske, J., Cerv, M., Kreida, S., Komadina, D., Fischer, J., Barthelmess, M., Fischer, P., Pakendorf, T., Yefanov, O., Mariani, V., Seine, T., Ross, B. H., Crosas, E., Lorbeer, O., Burkhardt, A., Lane, T. J., Guenther, S., Bergtholdt, J., Schoen, S., Törnroth-Horsefield, S., Chapman, H. N. & Meents, A. (2019). IUCrJ, 6, 714–728. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Lorber, B. (2005). Cryst. Growth Des. 5, 17–19. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Lukatsky, D. B. & Shakhnovich, E. I. (2008). Phys. Rev. E, 77, 020901. CrossRef Google Scholar
Luo, Y., Na, Z. & Slavoff, S. A. (2018). Biochemistry, 57, 2424–2431. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
McPherson, A. & Cudney, B. (2006). J. Struct. Biol. 156, 387–406. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Meents, A., Wiedorn, M. O., Srajer, V., Henning, R., Sarrou, I., Bergtholdt, J., Barthelmess, M., Reinke, P. Y. A., Dierksmeyer, D., Tolstikova, A., Schaible, S., Messerschmidt, M., Ogata, C. M., Kissick, D. J., Taft, M. H., Manstein, D. J., Lieske, J., Oberthuer, D., Fischetti, R. F. & Chapman, H. N. (2017). Nat. Commun. 8, 1281. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Nield, J., Rizkallah, P. J., Barber, J. & Chayen, N. E. (2003). J. Struct. Biol. 141, 149–155. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Norrman, M., Ståhl, K., Schluckebier, G. & Al-Karadaghi, S. (2006). J. Appl. Cryst. 39, 391–400. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Olieric, V., Schreiber, A., Lorber, B. & Pütz, J. (2007). Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 35, 280–286. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Panjikar, S., Thomsen, L., O'Donnell, K. M. & Riboldi-Tunnicliffe, A. (2015). J. Appl. Cryst. 48, 913–916. CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Rupp, B. (2010). Biomolecular Crystallography: Principles, Practice, and Application to Structural Biology. New York: Garland Science. Google Scholar
Sauter, A., Roosen-Runge, F., Zhang, F., Lotze, G., Feoktystov, A., Jacobs, R. M. J. & Schreiber, F. (2015). Faraday Discuss. 179, 41–58. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Snapp, E. (2005). Curr. Protoc. Cell Biol. 27, 21.4.1–21.4.13. CrossRef Google Scholar
Sparta, K. M., Krug, M., Heinemann, U., Mueller, U. & Weiss, M. S. (2016). J. Appl. Cryst. 49, 1085–1092. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Spence, J. C. H. (2017). IUCrJ, 4, 322–339. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Stura, E. A., Taussig, M. J., Sutton, B. J., Duquerroy, S., Bressanelli, S., Minson, A. C. & Rey, F. A. (2002). Acta Cryst. D58, 1715–1721. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Vyncke, L., Masschaele, D., Tavernier, J. & Peelman, F. (2019). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20, 2058. CrossRef Google Scholar
Wang, Q. & Moerner, W. E. (2015). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 13880–13885. CrossRef CAS PubMed 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
Yip, C. M. & Ward, M. D. (1996). Biophys. J. 71, 1071–1078. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Yu, J., Liberton, M., Cliften, P. F., Head, R. D., Jacobs, J. M., Smith, R. D., Koppenaal, D. W., Brand, J. J. & Pakrasi, H. B. (2015). Sci. Rep. 5, 8132. CrossRef PubMed 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.