Predicted Outcome and Suggestions

Input: Experimental Values & Sequence Data
Molecular Weight 29312 kDa
R30 from DSF (Tm) 0.01
Using the average of your 3 TM runs
Yield Ylds = 2.00
YldM = 0.0
SECresidual 1 Gaussian 1.386
Dismax 13
DLSMR 2.710
Values for criteria with colored backgrounds favor or do not favor producing well-diffracting crystals.
See the decision tree for how these values were used in predicting outcome.
Prediction
Predicted Diffraction Score:
    5.44

Likely to form crystals with diffraction of 2.8 Å or better.

See distribution of diffraction scores for samples with these characteristics, for more information on likely outcome.

Suggested actions if you get no crystal hits in initial trials:

Try more crystallization conditions.

  • The C6 server, Comparison of Crystallisation Conditions at the [Australian] Collaborative Crystallisation Centre, may be able to help you figure out what other conditions to try, e.g. which commercial screens have conditions least like those you've already tried if you have no hits, or most like the conditions that gave crystals that need optimization.
  • High-throughput screening (HTS) laboratories such as those at the Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute in Buffalo, New York or EMBL in Grenoble, can use relatively small volumes of sample to screen many crystallization conditions at once.

NOTE: The prediction model on this site was developed excluding proteins with ligands or optimized buffers added after size exclusion. We make no claim that ligands or buffers which improve the experimental properties of the protein will improve its crystallizability. But buffer optimization or ligand screening via e.g. DSF works in some cases.

Distribution of Outcomes


Predicted Diffraction
Training Set
Test Set
Number of Samples

Distribution of diffraction scores for proteins which meet the same criteria among our initial set of 107 protozoan proteins, 30% of which had DS of 4 (10 Å diffraction) or better; 20% had DS 5 (2.8 Å) or better.

Decision Tree