Phase knowledge enables rational screens for protein crystallization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show that knowledge of the phase behavior of a protein allows one to create a rational screen that increases the success rate of crystallizing challenging proteins. The strategy is based on using microfluidics to perform large numbers of protein solubility experiments across many different chemical conditions to identify reagents for crystallization experiments. Phase diagrams were generated for the identified reagents and used to design customized crystallization screens for every protein. This strategy was applied with a 75% success rate to the crystallization of 12 diverse proteins, most of which failed to crystallize when using traditional techniques. The overall diffraction success rate was 33%, about double what was achieved with conventional automation in large-scale protein structure consortia. The higher diffraction success rates are achieved by designing customized crystallization screens using the phase behavior information for each target. The identification of reagents based on an understanding of protein solubility and the use of phase diagrams in the design of individualized crystallization screens therefore promotes high crystallization rates and the production of diffraction-quality crystals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it