Next Article in Journal
A Computational Study on Polar ABiO3 (A = Ca, Zn, Mg) Compounds with Large Electric Polarization
Previous Article in Journal
Implementation of Phase Transitions in Rb3H(SO4)2 under K Substitution
Previous Article in Special Issue
Morphological Investigation of Protein Crystals by Atomic Force Microscopy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Crystals
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/cryst13091402
Review Report
crystals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Se-MAG Is a Convenient Additive for Experimental Phasing and Structure Determination of Membrane Proteins Crystallised by the Lipid Cubic Phase (In Meso) Method

Crystals 2023, 13(9), 1402; https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst13091402
by Coilín Boland 1,†, Chia-Ying Huang 2,†, Shiva Shanker Kaki 3, Meitian Wang 2,*, Vincent Olieric 2,* and Martin Caffrey 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Bernhard Rupp
Reviewer 2:
Tzu-** Ko
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Crystals 2023, 13(9), 1402; https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst13091402
Submission received: 10 August 2023 / Revised: 1 September 2023 / Accepted: 3 September 2023 / Published: 21 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Membrane Protein Crystallography)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is about using a Se-containing analogue of amphipathic lipid, Se-MAG, in structure determination of two membrane proteins by Se-SAD phasing. Because the ligand does not bind to specific sites, it may not work at all times but only by chance. In fact, given that the crystals were so strong to yield data sets with such high redundancy as said in line 552, I suspect that the use of S-SAD would do an even better job.

 

The last paragraph of conclusion, that boasts the use of Se-MAG and Se-SAD in solving difficult structures would beat the use of computational models and molecular replacement, is not justified, and it should be removed. Please read the following two papers to have a good idea of the current trends. The connection of this work to the 2012 Nobel Prize is already a bit too much.

 

Barbarin-Bocahu I, Graille M. The X-ray crystallography phase problem solved thanks to AlphaFold and RoseTTAFold models: a case-study report. Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol. 2022 Apr 1;78(Pt 4):517-531. doi: 10.1107/S2059798322002157. Epub 2022 Mar 16. Erratum in: Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol. 2023 Apr 1;79(Pt 4):353. PMID: 35362474.

 

Oeffner RD, Croll TI, Millán C, Poon BK, Schlicksup CJ, Read RJ, Terwilliger TC. Putting AlphaFold models to work with phenix.process_predicted_model and ISOLDE. Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol. 2022 Nov 1;78(Pt 11):1303-1314. doi: 10.1107/S2059798322010026. Epub 2022 Oct 27. PMID: 36322415; PMCID: PMC9629492.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading the paper and I recommend acceptance of this paper after minor revisions

Minor remarks:

Authors should provide appropriate citations for Page 2; line 34-36

Authors may cite "https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15676" appropriately in the introduction section. 

Can authors list the limitations of the study? Although the authors have made it clear using the selenium for phase-solving problems but how intensive and challenging it can be for experimental point of view? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop