Structural characterization of proteins |
Common technique |
Macromolecular crystallography |
|
[15] |
NMR |
-
•
Captures atomic detail of small, flexible proteins
-
•
Data can be fit into SAXS/molecular docking/low-resolution cryo-EM data
|
[22], [24], [25]
|
SAXS/SANS |
Provides overall protein complex shape that can be fit with atomic structures |
[40], [42], [43], [44]
|
Recent advancement |
Cryo-EM SPA |
|
[45], [52]
|
Computational modeling |
Detailed atomic subunit predictions which can be fit into SAXS/molecular docking or used in MX analysis |
[61], [66], [68]
|
|
Identification and characterization of protein–protein interactions
|
Common technique |
Co-IP |
Isolates strong protein interactions using affinity pulldowns that can be characterized by MS |
[84] |
FRET |
Determines domain positioning or how two proteins interact based on proximity of two fluorophores |
[101] |
Recent advancement |
XL-MS |
Captures strong and weak interacting partners and identifies which residues are in proximity to each other |
[85], [115], [116], [117]
|
Molecular docking |
Uses structural data and surface predictions to determine how protein complexes interact |
[87], [88], [89], [90]
|
Proximity labeling |
Identifies proteins that come within 10 nm of the protein of interest |
[86] |
|
Contextualization of protein–protein interactions
|
Future of ISB |
Whole-cell cryo-ET |
|
[103], [104]
|
Single-cell cryo-EM |
|
[111], [112]
|
XL-MS and cryo-EM SPA |
Traps transient and stable protein complexes with crosslinkers which can be characterized with cryo-EM SPA |
[102], [114]
|