Subscribe by Email

Your email:

Protein Crystallization Hits

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Protein Sample Preparation: Shoot for > 20 ODml

I learned this simple trick from Larry Miercke @ UCSF: rather than measuring OD280 and computing mg/ml using an extinction coefficient, go straight with ODs.

Here's how this works:
Measure the OD280 (that's the Optical Density at 280 nm; using a proper reference buffer) of the protein solution at hand. For simplicity reason let's say you've got 50 ml of pooled eluate fractions and you're using a 1 cm path length cuvette. If your OD280 reading is 0.5 you'd multiply 0.5 OD by 50 ml and say that you've got "25 ODml worth of protein".

Note that as a rule of thumb for most proteins:
1. you can assume that an 2 ODml correspond to 1 mg, and an OD of 2 corresponds to ca. 1 mg/ml;
2. concentrate the protein solution to higher than 20 OD to set it up in a protein crystallization trial.

So, when you're done with a protein prep you want to keep concentrating until you've got an OD exceeding 20. Say your solution is now concentrated to an OD of 22 in a single ml - that's 22 ODml. Let's snap freeze 400 ul and use the remaining 600 ul to set up 6 x 96 1 ul+1ul crystallization experiments (Wizard I, II, III and IV and Cryo I and II of course ;) for incubation at RT and at 4C.

What do you do if someone asks for the protein concentration? Using the rule of thumb (OD of 2 corresponds to ca. 1 mg of protein) you can do the quick math: knowing that your purification yielded a total of 22 ODml, divided by 2 equals: 11 mg of protein! And since the concentration procedure resulted in a ml of solution the protein concentration you used to set up the crystallization experiment is 22 ODml / 1 ml - that's 11 mg/ml.

Pretty simple, hm? No need to employ Beer Lambert.

At first sight there's no fundamental difference between accounting in terms of ODml or using properly calculated mg/ml. There are several advantages of the ODml system though:
1. you're dealing with a tangible parameter that's easy to assay anywhere in the purification protocol,
2. It's easy to monitor the slight decrease of the ODml during concentration, if the ODml increase there's a problem,
3. you're not obligated to use a parameter that you know is associated with some margin of error since the calculated extinction coefficient is not perfectly accurate.
I've also seen how extinction coefficients for a particular protein have changed as I progressed with my project. Other than mundane OD280 errors from Raleigh Scatter and buffer or sample contamination there are actual reasons why the extinction coefficient may change during the course of purification: This may be due to the
4. Cys redox state that you're starting to better manage at one point or
5. ligands that dissociate during purification.
Going back in your notebook you may be wondering, 'which extinction coefficient did I use to compute this protein concentration'? You're not bothered by such questions when using OD and ODml.
BTW, a similar argument may be said about the molecular weight (MW) of the target: you *think* you're working with a 46 kDa protein as calculated from sequence until you've seen the Mass Spec analysis. Since the MW is part of your Beer Lambert conversion you can avoid this systematic error.

In short: ODml are for real and are simple to use.

Nevertheless, for all of you wishing to get an estimate of the protein concentration in mg/ml using amino-acid based estimated extinction coefficients, here's how to use the ProtParam tool for this purpose:

1. Paste in your amino acid sequence into the sequence box (I'm using the sequence of chicken lysozyme)

 

ProtParam accepts amino acid sequences, counts Tyr, Trp, Cys, adds up the corresponding extinction coefficients and outputs this number as an overall Extinction coefficient  (and other data) to the user.

2. Click the button 'Computer parameters' and a data rich report is generated, listing

• Number of amino acids
• Molecular weight
• Theoretical pI
• Amino acid composition
• Total number of negatively charged residues
• Total number of positively charged residues
• Atomic composition
• Formula
• Total number of atoms
Extinction coefficients
• Estimated half life
• Instability index
• Aliphatic index
• Grand average of hydrophathicity (GRAVY)

That's a lot of data to digest. Let's look closely at the section 'Extinction Coefficient':

The extinction coefficients are served ready to get inserted into Beer Lambert's Law, where the protein concentration is calculated from:

         OD280 x MW (in g/mol)
-----------------------------------------------
Ext. coefficient (1/Mcm) x path length (cm)

3. Using the example above (OD of 22), the concentration becomes:

   22 x 16,238.6 g/mol
----------------------------- = 9.4 mg/ml
   37,970 /Mcm x 1 cm

That's a suitable concentration to go into protein crystallization trials with and is pretty close to the 11 mg/ml estimate using the OD rule of thumb.

Peter


Comments

I completely agree that this is the best way to keep track of your protein "concentration". For crystallography, the accurate measure of protein concentration is not meaningful. What is meaningful is the concentration you used for your successful crystallization experiment. An effective way to reproduce the same concentration (given the same buffer) is far more important than knowing you had 350 micromolar protein. 
 
I highly recommend the NanoDrop microliter UV/Vis spec. I record the UV/Vis spectrum of each of my protein solutions (and only use ~2 microliters of undiluted protein for each spectrum). This eliminates any worry about the protein concentration method (Bradford reagents, protein standards, pipettor accuracy, etc). 
 
Also, I've found that the bulk of proteins actually are closer to 1 OD = 1 mg/ml, but your mileage varies greatly by protein sequence. Expasy's ProtParam website is quite valuable for predicting your extinction coefficient.
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:35 PM by Todd
Interesting you mention the NanoDrop. I realize it's very convenient. How about accuracy? Todd, do you have any opinion / data on this topic?
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:13 PM by Peter Nollert
I've used a NanoDrop almost daily for the past 5 years and could not be a bigger fan of the device.  
 
I've found it to be incredibly stable and precise. Such that if I measure a particular solution once a week for a month, the instrument gives OD readings within +/- 0.03. 
 
I was most surprised by the dynamic range of the device. I've measured OD readings up to ~80 OD units. When that sample is diluted to more "normal" OD readings, it back calculates to the original, concentrated value each time. It does have a limit of ~85 OD units, but below that it is reliable. It takes two measurements (at 0.1 mm and 1.0 mm) to accurately give such a dynamic range. 
 
I've found it incredibly reliable with at least 1.7 microliters loaded. Anything beyond that is waste, anything below that gives a small chance of forming an air bubble in the sample. 
 
For a crystallography lab, the NanoDrop is a must (or a similar product).
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:27 PM by Todd
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

Receive email when someone replies.