Linked Life Data

12657807

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/12657807

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
Pt 4
pubmed:dateCreated
2003-3-26
pubmed:abstractText
Sparse-matrix sampling using commercially available crystallization screen kits has become the most popular way of determining the preliminary crystallization conditions for macromolecules. In this study, the efficiency of three commercial screening kits, Crystal Screen and Crystal Screen 2 (Hampton Research), Wizard Screens I and II (Emerald BioStructures) and Personal Structure Screens 1 and 2 (Molecular Dimensions), has been compared using a set of 19 diverse proteins. 18 proteins yielded crystals using at least one crystallization screen. Surprisingly, Crystal Screens and Personal Structure Screens showed dramatically different results, although most of the crystallization formulations are identical as listed by the manufacturers. Higher molecular weight polyethylene glycols and mixed precipitants were found to be the most effective precipitants in this study.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Apr
pubmed:issn
0907-4449
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
59
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
769-72
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-7-24
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2003
pubmed:articleTitle
Comparison of three commercial sparse-matrix crystallization screens.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Evaluation Studies