Skip to content


  • Research article
  • Open Access

Protecting role of cosolvents in protein denaturation by SDS: a structural study

  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 2
BMC Structural Biology20088:29

  • Received: 17 March 2008
  • Accepted: 03 June 2008
  • Published:



Recently, we reported a unique approach to preserve the activity of some proteins in the presence of the denaturing agent, Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate (SDS). This was made possible by addition of the amphipathic solvent 2,4-Methyl-2-PentaneDiol (MPD), used as protecting but also as refolding agent for these proteins. Although the persistence of the protein activity in the SDS/MPD mixture was clearly established, preservation of their structure was only speculative until now.


In this paper, a detailed X-ray study addresses the pending question. Crystals of hen egg-white lysozyme were grown for the first time in the presence of MPD and denaturing concentrations of SDS. Depending on crystallization conditions, tetragonal crystals in complex with either SDS or MPD were collected. The conformation of both structures was very similar to the native lysozyme and the obtained complexes of SDS-lysozyme and MPD-lysozyme give some insights in the interplay of protein-SDS and protein-MPD interactions.


This study clearly established the preservation of the enzyme structure in a SDS/MPD mixture. It is hypothesized that high concentrations of MPD would change the properties of SDS and lower or avoid interactions between the denaturant and the protein. These structural data therefore support the hypothesis that MPD avoids disruption of the enzyme structure by SDS and can protect proteins from SDS denaturation.


  • Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate
  • Lysozyme
  • Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate Concentration
  • Reservoir Solution
  • Sodium Acetate Solution


Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) is a highly effective and widely used protein denaturant [1, 2]. Our previous work has shown that amphipathic solvents, like 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol (MPD), a commonly used precipitant for crystallization studies [3], can protect proteins from SDS denaturation, and in several cases can drive the transition from the SDS-denatured state to a functional folded state [4]. This protecting effect of MPD is observed with a wide range of proteins including membrane proteins and soluble enzymes, and is not applicable if proteins are denatured in guanidine or urea, two other denaturant agents. In the case of hen egg-white lysozyme, SDS concentrations above 1.0 mM abolished the activity of the enzyme in the absence of MPD. However, in 2 M MPD, the activity was preserved in the presence of SDS. In addition, when the enzyme was first denatured with SDS for 24 hours prior to adding MPD, full enzymatic activity was recovered in 2 M MPD following a further 24 hour incubation period. Although the persistence of the enzyme activity in the SDS/MPD mixture was clearly established, preservation of its structure was only speculative until now.

In the present contribution, a detailed X-ray study addresses the pending question. Crystals of hen egg-white lysozyme could be grown for the first time in a SDS/MPD medium, providing support that adding MPD to proteins can avoid SDS denaturation. The obtained complexes of SDS-lysozyme and MPD-lysozyme give some insights in the interplay of protein-SDS and protein-MPD interactions. A previous report described the structure of cross-linked lysozyme crystals soaked in SDS solutions [5]. In the latter, unlike both structures described in this paper, SDS was found at three different locations inside the protein inducing a major structural deformation in the interior of lysozyme.

Results and discussion


Crystals of hen egg-white lysozyme solubilized in 4 mM SDS, a usually denaturing condition, and 2 M MPD were obtained, without any cross-linking, contrary to the study of Yonath et al. [5], in two different conditions (see Materials and Methods). Tetragonal crystals, called "form I" crystals, were obtained from a classical sodium acetate solution at pH 4.6. In this condition, few MPD, slightly volatile, is expected to remain in the drop after equilibration of the protein droplet with the MPD-free reservoir solution (Table 1). To enhance the concentration of SDS and MPD into the drop, and taking into account results from the literature [6], crystals were also obtained by equilibrating protein solutions with reservoir solutions of 50 mM Tris pH8, 70% MPD and 6 mM SDS resulting in "form II" crystals. Both crystals belong to the same tetragonal space group, P43212. Form I crystals diffracted X-rays to 2.3 and form II diffracted to 1.75Å.
Table 1

Statistics of data collection and structure refinement


Form I

Form II

Expected MPD concentration in the drop after equilibration

close to 0 M

>4 M

Expected SDS concentration in the protein droplet

~2 mM

~5 mM

Data collection

Space group



Unit-cell parameters (Ǻ)

a = b = 77.59, c = 37.57

a = b = 77.90, c = 37.53

Maximum resolution (Ǻ)



Unique reflections






Completeness (%)



Avg. I/σ



R merge (%)



Refinement statistics

R (%) a



R free (%) a



RMSD bond lengths (Ǻ)



RMSD angle distances (Ǻ) RMSD bond angles (°)



Average B value (Ǻ 2 )


Protein atoms



MPD molecules



SDS molecule



Water molecules



Ramachandran plot

Most favored, additional, generously allowed (%)



No. of MPD molecules



No. of SDS molecules



No. of Na ion



No. of Cl ion



No. of water molecules



Values listed in parentheses are for the highest resolution.

a Rfactor = ∑||F o | - |F c ||/∑|F o |. Rfree was calculated with 5% of the reflections set aside randomly throughout the refinement.

Structure overview

Unlike the one obtained by Yonath et al [5], the overall conformation of both structures is very similar to native lysozyme (PDB code 1Z55). The RMSD values calculated using the Cα atoms, after superimposition with the native structure, are 0.27 and 0.20 Å for form I and form II crystals, respectively (Fig. 1). No large structural changes are observed and the interior of the enzyme is intact. The most significant variations are observed at the surface of the proteins in loops where electron densities are less well-defined (for flexible residues like arginine and lysine). These differences are probably due to uncertainties from the model or intrinsic thermal behavior.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Superimposition of crystal structure of lyzozyme in the native state (1Z55; orange), co-crystallized with SDS (form I; green) and with SDS/MPD (form II; blue).

The presence of high concentration of MPD can therefore avoid disruption of the structure of the enzyme by SDS. Indeed, as shown by Yonath [5], SDS, by binding deeply into the hydrophobic core of the protein, induces separation of the two wings of lysozyme. In addition, the form I crystal, where few MPD is expected to remain in the drop, shows that MPD was able to induce irreversibly the correct folding of lysozyme in the presence of a denaturing concentration of SDS (2 mM).

Interaction of SDS or MPD with lysozyme

Depending on the used reservoir solution, different small molecules were found co-crystallized with lysozyme (Table 1). SDS and MPD molecules could be identified unambiguously in the density maps due to their characteristic shape. With condition II buffer, a first MPD molecule, in the S configuration, occupies the C-subsite in the sugar-binding cleft of the protein formed by residues Asn59, Trp63, Ile58, Ala107 and Trp108 (Fig. 2). This was also found to be the binding site of alcohol molecules like ethanol, propanol, butanol and pentanol [7] and of denaturants, used at non-denaturing concentrations, like DMSO, guanidinium hydrochloride [8] and urea [9, 10]. This is in agreement with the assumption that generally MPD molecules prefer to bind to hydrophobic site and MPD binding is penetrative, leading to displacement of water molecules in grooves and cavities [3]. The hydrophobic part of the molecule interacts with Trp108 (contact ≤ 3.5Ǻ) and both alcohol groups are H bonded to the backbone of Asn59 and to Trp63, respectively. A second MPD molecule, in the S configuration, is bound on the surface between two lysozyme molecules, close to Arg114 (Fig. 3). No molecules of SDS were observed in the electronic density map.
Figure 2
Figure 2

Stereoview of the complex between lysozyme and MPD in the C-subsite. Electron density of the 2F O -F C map is contoured at 1σ level for MPD.

Figure 3
Figure 3

Stereoview of the complex between lysozyme and MPD on the surface of the protein. Electron density of the 2F O -F C map is contoured at 1σ level for MPD.

The S configuration of both MPD molecules is quite clear by lowering the contour level to around 0.6 but at this stage, it is impossible to deduce that S-MPD is more stabilizing than the R one.

A comparison of the above structure with the one of lysozyme crystallized in the presence of MPD, without SDS, (PDB code 1DPW, 1.64 Ǻ) [6] yields RMSD of 0.14 Ǻ for the superposition of Cα atoms. The location of the second MPD molecule in the present study matches the one previously described, except the configuration which is switched. The water molecule between MPD and Arg114 is also conserved. Moreover, two chloride ions were identified in the same binding site as in the 1DPW structure. Additionally, a sodium ion was observed ligated to the main chain carbonyl oxygen's of residues Ser60, Cys64, Arg73, Oγ of Ser72 side chain, and two water molecules. This sodium ion binding site was present in the enzyme in the presence of low concentration of DMSO and guanidinium chloride [8].

With the condition I buffer, as expected, no electron density was observed for MPD whereas a SDS molecule was found on the surface of lysozyme, exposed to the solvent. As suggested by Weiss et al, MPD may only be able to bind lysozyme at high pH values and/or at high concentration. SDS is loosely bound, as indicated by its temperature factors (70–80 Å for the sulphate tail). The SDS sulphate is salt bridged to Arg73 (Fig. 4) and the hydrocarbon tail makes contacts with Ser60, Cys64-Pro70, Ser72-Asn74. The binding position is different from those described in the SDS-lysozyme complex described earlier where the SDS molecules bind deeply into the protein [5]. Indeed, the hydrophobic interactions of SDS with the core of the protein are assumed to be lowered in the presence of MPD. In addition, the binding of SDS does not alter the structure of lysozyme. In this structure, no sodium or chloride ions were observed. It is worth noting that this study presents one of the very few structures of proteins co-crystallized with a denaturing concentration of SDS in its native form.
Figure 4
Figure 4

Stereoview of the complex between SDS and the enzyme. Electron density of the 2F O -F C map is contoured at 1σ level for SDS. Figures 1 to 4 were generated by using PyMOL [17].


This study, where crystals of lysozyme were grown for the first time in the presence of the amphipathic solvent MPD and denaturing concentrations of SDS, clearly established the preservation of the enzyme structure in a SDS/MPD mixture. It is hypothesized that high concentrations of MPD, changing the properties of SDS, would lower (condition I) or avoid (condition II) interactions between SDS and the protein. Indeed, in the form II crystal, even though it contains higher SDS concentration, but also higher MPD concentration, than in the form I, no SDS molecule was observed. This assumption is in agreement with the size-exclusion chromatography study described earlier [4], demonstrating that the protein no longer interacts strongly with SDS in a MPD buffer system. These structural data therefore support the hypothesis that MPD can protect proteins from SDS denaturation.

In addition, it is worth noting that this contribution shows one of the very few structures of proteins, in its native form, co-crystallized with SDS.



Lyophilized hen egg-white lysozyme, obtained from Sigma, was solubilized in 4 mM SDS, 50 mM Tris pH8, 150 mM NaCl and 2 M MPD (racemic form) (around 10 mg/ml protein). Crystals were grown at room temperature by the hanging drop vapor diffusion method using two different conditions. First 4 μl of the protein solution was mixed with 4 μl of a MPD-free reservoir solution containing 100 mM sodium acetate buffer pH 4.6 and 2 M sodium formate (condition I), and equilibrated with 1 mL of reservoir solution. In the second condition, the reservoir solution consists of 50 mM Tris pH8, 70% (~4.6 M) MPD (racemic form) and 6 mM SDS (condition II).

Data collection, processing and refinement

Crystals harvested directly from mother liquor were flash-frozen in a 100 K nitrogen stream with no added cryoprotectant. Diffraction data of the form I crystals were collected using a Bruker MICROSTAR generator with a Bruker Proteum X8 CCD X-ray detector. The crystal-to-detector distance was 60 mm; 180 images (0.5° as oscillation range/image) with a 120 sec exposure time per image were collected; SAINT-Plus/Proteum was used to process the data.

For the form II crystals, a Gemini Ultra R system (4-circle kappa platform, Ultra Enhanced Cu Source, Ruby CCD detector) was used. The crystal-to-detector distance was 50 mm; 180 images with a 90 sec exposure time per image were collected; CrysAlis CCD and CrysAlis RED were used to process the data.

A molecular replacement solution was found using Phaser [11] with the molecular model of the native lysozyme (PDB entry 1Z55). Refinement was performed either with the Shelxl97 (Form II) [12] or Refmac5 (Form I) program [13]. Electron density maps were inspected with the graphic program Xtalview (Form II) [14] or Coot (Form I) [15], and the quality of the model was analyzed with the program Procheck [16]. The atomic coordinates and structure factors have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank (3B6L and 3B72).



CM is grateful to FNRS for financial support. This work was funded in part by a CIHR grand to GGP.

Authors’ Affiliations

Chemistry department, CBS lab, CPTS group, 61 rue de Bruxelles, B-5000 Namur, Belgium
Division of Cancer Genomics and Proteomics, Ontario Cancer Institute 101 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1L7, Canada


  1. Gimel JC, Brown W: A light-scattering investigation of the sodium dodecyl sulfate-lysozyme system. J Chem Phys 1996, 104: 8112–8117. 10.1063/1.471496View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Otzen DE: Protein unfolding in detergents: effect of micelle structure, ionic strength, pH, and temperature. Biophys J 2002, 83: 2219–2230.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand K, Pal D, Hilgenfeld R: An overview on 2-methyl-2,4-pentanediol in crystallization and in crystals of biological macromolecules. Acta Cryst D 2002, 58: 1722–1728. 10.1107/S0907444902014610View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Michaux C, Pomroy N, Privé GG: Refolding SDS-denatured proteins by the addition of amphipathic cosolvents. J Mol Biol 2008, 375: 1477–1488. 10.1016/j.jmb.2007.11.026View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Yonath A, Podjarny A, Honig B, Sielecki A, Traub W: Crystallographic studies of protein denaturation and renaturation. 2. Sodium dodecyl sulfate induced structural changes in triclinic lysozyme. Biochemistry 1977, 16: 1418–1424. 10.1021/bi00626a028View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Weiss MS, Palm GJ, Hilgenfeld R: Crystallization, structure solution and refinement of hen egg-white lysozyme at pH 8.0 in the presence of MPD. Acta Cryst D 2000, 56: 952–958. 10.1107/S0907444900006685View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Deshpande A, Nimsadkar S, Mande SC: Effect of alcohols on protein hydration: crystallographic analysis of hen egg-white lysozyme in the presence of alcohols. Acta Cryst D 2005, 61: 1005–1008. 10.1107/S0907444905009364View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Mande SC, Sobhia ME: Structural characterization of protein-denaturant interactions: crystal structures of hen egg-white lysozyme in complex with DMSO and guanidinium chloride. Protein Eng 2000, 13: 133–141. 10.1093/protein/13.2.133View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Pike AC, Acharya KR: A structural basis for the interaction of urea with lysozyme. Protein Sci 1994, 3: 706–710.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Salem M, Mauguen Y, Prangé T: On the edge of the denaturation process: application of X-ray diffraction to barnase and lysozyme cross-linked crystals with denaturants in molar concentrations. Biochim Biophys Acta 2006, 1764: 903–912.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Storoni LC, McCoy AJ, Read RJ: Likelihood-enhanced fast rotation functions. Acta Cryst D 2004, 60: 432–438. 10.1107/S0907444903028956View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Sheldrick GM, Schneider TR: SHELXL: High-resolution refinement. In Methods in Enzymol. Volume 277. Elsevier, San Diego, CA, Etats-Unis; 1997:319–343. Sheldrick GM: SHELXS97 and SHELXL97. Université de Göttingen, Allemagne 1997Google Scholar
  13. Murshudov GN, Vagin AA, Dodson EJ: Refinement of Macromolecular Structures by the Maximum-Likelihood Method. Acta Cryst 1997, D53: 240–255.Google Scholar
  14. McRee DE: XtalView/Xfit – A Versatile Program for Manipulating Atomic Coordinates and Electron Density. J Struct Biol 1999, 125: 156–165. 10.1006/jsbi.1999.4094View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Emsley P, Cowtan K: Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Cryst 2004, D60: 2126–2132.Google Scholar
  16. Laskowski RA, MacArthur MW, Moss DS, Thornton JM: PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures. J App Cryst 1993, 26: 283–291. 10.1107/S0021889892009944View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. DeLano WL: The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System.DeLano Scientific, San Carlos, CA, USA; 2002. []Google Scholar


© Michaux et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.