Information on the comparative digestibility of food allergens and nonallergenic proteins is crucial when stability to digestion is to be used as a criterion to assess the allergenic potential of novel proteins. In this work, we compared the digestive stability of a number of food allergens and proteins of unproven allergenicity and examined whether allergens possess a higher stability than nonallergenic proteins of similar cellular functions, and whether there is a correlation between protein digestibility and allergenicity. The stability of groups of storage proteins, plant lectins, contractile proteins, and enzymes, both allergens and proteins with unproven allergenicity, in a standard simulated gastric fluid and a standard simulated intestinal fluid was measured. Food allergens were not necessarily more resistant to digestion than nonallergenic proteins. There was not a clear relationship between digestibility measured in vitro and protein allergenicity.

No abstract

To the editor:Obtaining diffraction-quality crystals is a major bottleneck in protein X-ray crystallography. For example, the current success rate for protein structure solution at the Midwest Center for Structural Genomics (starting from purified protein) is ~10%. Protein crystallization is influenced by many factors, and many methods have been developed to enhance crystallization. In particular, reductive methylation of proteins has been successfully applied to obtain high-quality crystals 1-4 . Several studies 3,5,6 have indicated that methylating the solvent-exposed ε-amino group of lysines changes protein properties (pI, solubility and hydropathy) 7,8 , which may promote crystallization via improving crystal packing. Reductive methylation of proteins is a simple, generic method; it is fast, specific and requires few steps under relatively mild buffer and chemical conditions and can be executed for several proteins in parallel. Native and methylated proteins have very similar structures, and, in most cases, methylated proteins maintain their biochemical function 2,5,9 . Some proteins can only be crystallized after methylation 3,10 , and crystals of modified proteins often diffract to higher resolution 3,9 . The efficacy of the method has been previously tested on 10 proteins, with a 30% success rate 3 .Here we investigated the application of reductive methylation on a large scale. We applied a previously described reductive methylation protocol 2,11 (Supplementary Methods online) to 370 sequence-diverse proteins selected from protein families that had no structural homologs with >30% sequence identity. We expressed 370 recombinant proteins and purified them using standard methods 12 and screened them using standard crystal screening methods (Supplementary Methods). Of the 370 proteins, 269 proteins had not previously yielded crystals suitable for structure determination (crystals were too small, poorly ordered, twinned, highly mosaic or multiple), 85 proteins had previously failed to crystallize and 16 proteins were a reference set (not previously screened for crystallization; Table 1 and Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 online). After reductive methylation, we obtained diffraction-quality crystals for 40 of the 370 proteins, and so far we solved 26 crystal structures ( NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptWe also determined the structures of 4 proteins in their native as well as their methylated states (Supplementary Methods). By comparing these structures, we obtained insight into how methylation affects protein crystallization. We observed a decrease in the isotropic B factor (Fig. 1), which is likely a result of more ordered crystal packing and which leads to better diffraction limits. Indeed, the resolution of the methylated structures (average, 2.07 Å) was better than that of their native counterparts (average, 3.05 Å; Supplementary Table 1). The methylated lysines were engaged in various intra-and intermolecular interactions with protein and solvent (carboxylates and ...