Data mining crystallization databases: Knowledge‐based approaches to optimize protein crystal screens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein crystallization is a major bottleneck in protein X-ray crystallography, the workhorse of most structural proteomics projects. Because the principles that govern protein crystallization are too poorly understood to allow them to be used in a strongly predictive sense, the most common crystallization strategy entails screening a wide variety of solution conditions to identify the small subset that will support crystal nucleation and growth. We tested the hypothesis that more efficient crystallization strategies could be formulated by extracting useful patterns and correlations from the large data sets of crystallization trials created in structural proteomics projects. A database of crystallization conditions was constructed for 755 different proteins purified and crystallized under uniform conditions. Forty-five percent of the proteins formed crystals. Data mining identified the conditions that crystallize the most proteins, revealed that many conditions are highly correlated in their behavior, and showed that the crystallization success rate is markedly dependent on the organism from which proteins derive. Of the proteins that crystallized in a 48-condition experiment, 60% could be crystallized in as few as 6 conditions and 94% in 24 conditions. Consideration of the full range of information coming from crystal screening trials allows one to design screens that are maximally productive while consuming minimal resources, and also suggests further useful conditions for extending existing screens.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".