A few quick thoughts.

I am still trying to unenviably navigate an n-dimensional parameter space, attempting to optimize the biochemistry for the present bane of my existence in order to get to some proper structural & biophysical studies. It is further complicated that whenever I do seem to devise a plan, something odd crops up in my data in amidst the general experimental madness (remember, if you work with n components, you need to vary one and keep n-1 constant : easier said than done!).

In any case, I stumbled across this interesting paper. Given my innate worrying about structural data obtained under cryogenic conditions, this was right up my alley – utilizing mesoporous materials to confine proteins and their hydration waters, and then using your interrogation method of choice across a range of temperatures without having to worry about the effects of bulk water. I can envision that this would be an excellent way to more explicitly bridge the gap between cryocrystallography and dynamic/functional studies done under more physiologically relevant conditions.

There was a very long back-and-forth over at The Curious Wavefunction this past week. I basically have the opinion that expecting physics to “explain” chemistry and biology is perhaps a bit overly demanding. I mean, it’s not as if all physicists are just waiting to wrap up high-energy/elementary particle physics and then retire, after all! There are still a number of unresolved questions in physics, and as a number of them involve many-body systems, it would only seem reasonable that those are the ones that would likely be of the most immediate application to chemistry and biology.

Now to finish preparing for this inclement weather…..
Read more!

As has been often noted about a number of topics, one’s biases will always skew one’s perspective.

On the one hand, we have this very interesting paper where the authors suggest correlated motions in ubiquitin over a distance of ~ 15 Angstroms (1.5 nm) based on further squeezing information from previously acquired NMR data with the help of computational methods. On the other hand, there is this other very intriguing paper where the authors put forth using gadolinium tags as a way to obtain structural constraints in proteins on the order of ~ 6 nm (60 Angstroms) via ESR/EPR techniques.

In the former, we’re looking at proposed long-distance correlations based on a bunch of relatively weak, short-range interactions (NOEs and RDCs), while in the latter we have nanometer-scale distance constraints being derived from a technique that is well matched to determining distances at the nanoscale. I figure the astute reader can figure where I stand on each given my tone.

Suffice it to say, it’s the reason why I’ve recently developed an interest in ¹⁹F NMR (oh, to work with a nucleus that has a decent gyromagnetic ratio and isn’t as common as protons in biological materials!), for one, as well as metal binding tags for paramagnetic relaxation enhancement studies.

In other news, my resolution for the second half of 2011 is to always try and work in a mention of the Helmholtz free energy into each discussion I am involved in that touches upon thermodynamics, as I think far too many chemists have gotten comfortable in their Gibbsian-oriented world.

I suppose this is one of those “it was bound to happen” things – one of the summer undergraduates who is in my lab at my current institution mentioned that the undergrad biochem lab uses a hexahistidine-tagged protein for overexpression & purification. I of course remember having to prep and subsequently grind up giant amounts of animal muscle to extract a protein in my undergrad biochem lab. I feel slightly dusty.

With that observation, I will call this blog post to an end. Read more!

SAXS And Promiscuity - Or, What Your Biochemistry Text Doesn't Cover.

Glycolysis is one of those things you learn about as an undergraduate (in high school as well, to be fair, but in a good bit more detail in an undergraduate biochemistry course) and – at least in my experience – it was presented as a topic that had already been well-explored and thoroughly annotated. After all, if it hadn’t been, would they have put it down for posterity in a textbook?

Snickering aside, I was pretty intrigued to see the following paper the other day for more than just being another entry in my “clearly, plenty of mechanistic detail was glossed over in my biochem text” list. Basically, the research team utilized a combination of crystallography, small-angle x-ray scattering (SAXS), and computational model to develop a scheme for the mechanism of phosphoglycerate kinase. They propose that the enzyme has a preferred “open” conformation where substrates (1,3-bisphosphoglycerate and ADP) can bind (separated by over 15 angstroms), and then a “closed” conformation, where the domains “fold in” on one another, bringing the substrates together for chemistry and which exposes a hydrophobic patch, which they suggest drives the preference for the “open” conformation. In the supplemental info, they do have some movies for download which make for fun viewing.

It is a nice example of what some in the structural biology field have been pulling for, an integration of high-resolution methods with lower-resolution methods that can provide additional insight into dynamics at the domain scale and above. Just as a representative example of this thinking is the SIBYLS beamline at Lawrence Berkeley Lab (SIBYLS – Structurally Integrated Biology for Life Sciences, where they possess the ability to do both crystallography and SAXS at the same station). They’ve also got a fairly lengthy review linked to on that page that describes the interplay between crystallography, SAXS, and computational methods.

In the spirit of Wavefunction’s link post the other week, at least, I stumbled across this recent paper on stochastic ensembles, conformationally adaptive teamwork, and enzymatic detoxification today. I am still working through the paper, but – given that one of the authors has written rather extensively on atypical (non-Michaelis-Menten) kinetics in enzymes – he is putting forth a new set of organizing thoughts for understanding the unusual substrate binding and catalytic properties of detoxification enzymes (which frequently have multiple isoforms differentially expressed in tissues). These enzymes are not only promiscuous in terms of the substrates they’ll work with, but are also involved in multiple metabolic processes. So it's hardly as straightforward as biochem texts are fond of portraying with those nice, neat flow charts. I have occasionally considered this as a possible reason for all those secondary metabolites in plants that no one can figure out why they're present in the first place - you have a bunch of enzymes floating around in the cells and given enough time, stuff happens. But that is perhaps another post for another day. Read more!

A modest update.

So, it appears that efforts in semi-quantitative biochemistry are approaching reproducibility, which is always interesting to observe. Of course, I have yet to surmount the final barrier of putting quantitative boundaries on both axes of my graphs (so far, there’s only the one axis that has actual numbers on it), so I suspect a couple more replications will be adequate to get it to a state where I will not dread being laughed at in public.

I suppose it will be something of a recurring theme in the future, but the crux of my interest in discussing protein dynamics is just how much territory that phrase covers, as what it implies varies from person to person, frequently corresponding to their own scientific interests. You have everything from the famed “protein dynamical transition” at around 180 K to research examining HD exchange in proteins, to studying the motion of various motifs in proteins as a function of a certain parameter, and extending all the way up to processes occurring at cell biology scales.

My current distraction (from reading things that are actually a bit more germane to my own work) is found here - a set of reviews on ion selectivity. It’s one of those topics I’ve found perpetually fascinating, although haven’t really worked in to any extent. Off to downloading! Read more!

I feel like I should note this given my last post – the expositions of NMR that I can recall sitting through over the last decade have focused on the effects of judiciously applied B1 fields have on nuclear spin magnetic moments, not absorption/emission of electromagnetic quanta. I suppose the "absorption notion" – even if only intended in a handwavy pedagogical manner – is one that can feel fairly natural and not too extraordinary (given that spectroscopic methods that do involve actual absorption/emission of quanta are ubiquitous). But onto what I really wanted to discuss today.

The perils of quantitative biochemistry.

I have returned to contending with my old nemesis, sedimentation assays. Back in the day, I was interested in the interaction of a protein with a polymer, in particular the stoichiometry of said interaction (e.g., how many monomer units needed to bind one protein). While I eventually managed to get a reasonable-seeming estimate, it took a few tries to really pin down the optimal way to do it in a clear and reproducible manner. Nowadays, I am interested in the formation of a protein complex on the surface of a vesicle.

Once again, my latest attempt at quantification of a particular interaction was doomed to “no one with two neurons to rub together would trust anything on this gel.” Lesson learned yet again to not just double-check everything, but quadruple-think every step and every sample that is loaded, to say nothing of any assumptions about the entire process. In the vein of the old adage, one has to pick two of the following – quickly, easily, properly – to do their biochemistry. Being crunched for time, I naturally figured the first two would be best (as my brief attempt at doing this same basic type of measurement - same system, albeit with some modest differences) worked out somewhat well a few months ago).

One of the major issues is that reasonable-enough precautions (a particular wash step) one might take to improve the quality of said measurements is not feasible in this system since said precaution will cause unwanted (and functionality-inhibiting) aggregation. Alas. The major issue is that there are a number of little things that need to be done just right in order to ensure gloriously clear results and measurement-to-measurement reproducibility.

Odds and Ends –

1.) A good chunk of my tax refund this year is going for my chronic science habit. Software, books, and single malt Scotch. Well, OK, the last might not properly qualify.
2.) I find the entire International Year of Chemistry thing to be charming. The efforts being made by various organizations is vaguely reminiscent of someone thinking that as long as they make an effort on their partner’s birthday and Valentine’s Day, things will work out. Your mileage may vary, but that's the feeling I get in the back of my mind. We should view the IYC as a beginning, not merely a window of opportunity, to educate, enlighten, and entertain those around us.
3.) I have this urge to discuss protein dynamics. Future posts, I suppose.

And with that, I’ll be off. Read more!

You spin me right round baby.....

I saw this come up in the comments here, and figured that it would make for a cute post. I will start off with the mundane, though.

One is frequently asked to picture electromagnetic radiation as an oscillating wave, with the electric and magnetic fields orthogonal to one another as it propagates. This, I imagine, does not come as a surprise to anyone reading this.

As is propagated in the above link, the NMR experiment is presented as utilizing radiofrequency (RF) waves to tickle the nuclear spin magnetic moments. Of course, that leads to the question presented in that post – how does an RF wave (with a wavelength on the order of meters) get absorbed at the scale of a single nucleus? One might also ask an analogous question on the other end of the experiment when one is recording a signal on your nearest friendly NMR spectrometer.

Now, for two related things to think about –

The first is the oft-neglected sibling in the magnetic resonance community, electron magnetic resonance (EMR, also known as ESR or EPR depending on who you speak to). One of the fun little things that you can shovel a sample into is a flat sample cell. This is exactly what it sounds like – your sample is basically sandwiched between two planes of quartz. It is helpful since you can position your sample (typically aqueous in this case, as they’re notoriously lossy) at a point of maximum magnetic field (high B1) and minimal electric field (low E1), which keeps the resonator Q-factor high as well as keeping your sample from heating up, which can make for sad spectroscopic pandas.

The second is the development of so-called “Low-E” probes for the biological solid state NMR community. Given that they are not infrequently studying aqueous samples with some amount of salts (aka lossy as hell), and the traditional need for high power decoupling to get adequately resolved spectra, minimizing sample heating has been a major focus of effort within the community. The result here is a probe that minimizes heating from the electric field, actually using some insights from the EMR/EPR/ESR community.

Now, if we think about what’s going on here….they’re trying to minimize the influence of the electric field (E1) by either judicious sample placement or probe design. We know from basic electromagnetism that an EM wave is composed of both electric and magnetic field components. It would seem that the absorption of EM radiation in magnetic resonance is not necessary for a successful experiment. It would, in fact, appear to be the case that what is important is the magnetic field that is generated by an appropriate EM source (RF for NMR/MRI, microwave for EMR) for the magnetic resonance experiment. The electric field appears to simply be a source of woe and frustration.

Of course, as noted in the comments to the above link, this is not new thinking. Hoult and his collaborators have been working on this topic in various ways and manners for over two decades now. There’s also that fun paper by Hanson regarding the necessity of quantum mechanics for understanding magnetic resonance. And more recently, there’s been a rather lengthy (and somewhat dense – I have a copy printed out, haven’t had a chance to really dig into it just yet) article on virtual photons in magnetic resonance, following up on Hoult’s suggestion from a while back.

Alright, back to things.... Read more!

There's a discussion here on a variety of topics, and in the comments, the issue of "homegrown" versus "bought" talent comes up. Of course, as may be par for the course, I suspect I see schools somewhat differently than the majority of the commenters there (I think of how awesome their NMR people are, naturally, followed by their biophysical chemists), so I was like, "How can someone say School X has no homegrown superstars - Professor Y went from fresh assistant professor to NAS electee in like 15 years?" But anyway.

I am feeling uncommonly pleasant and motivated this evening, though. Small victories in lab will do that to a person. I suppose I should power on through and finally finish up my taxes. Read more!