X-ray crystallography is a robust and widely used technique that facilitates the three-dimensional structure determination of proteins at an atomic scale. This methodology entails the growth of protein crystals under controlled conditions followed by their exposure to X-ray beams and the subsequent analysis of the resulting diffraction patterns via computational tools to determine the three-dimensional architecture of the protein. However, achieving high-resolution structures through X-ray crystallography can be quite challenging due to complexities associated with protein purity, crystallization efficiency, and crystal quality.In this chapter, we provide a detailed overview of the gene to structure determination pipeline used in X-ray crystallography, a crucial tool for understanding protein structures. The chapter covers the steps in protein crystallization, along with the processes of data collection, processing, structure determination, and refinement. The most commonly faced challenges throughout this procedure are also addressed. Finally, the importance of standardized protocols for reproducibility and accuracy is emphasized, as they are crucial for advancing the understanding of protein structure and function.

A crystal structure with N atoms in its unit cell can be solved starting from a model with atoms 1 to j - 1 being located. To locate the next atom j, the method uses a modified definition of the traditional R1 factor where its dependencies on the locations of atoms j + 1 to N are removed. This modified R1 is called the single-atom R1 (sR1), because the locations of atoms 1 to j - 1 in sR1 are the known parameters, and only the location of atom j is unknown. Finding the correct position of atom j translates thus into the optimization of the sR1 function, with respect to its fractional coordinates, xj, yj, zj. Using experimental data, it has been verified that an sR1 has a hole near each missing atom. Further, it has been verified that an algorithm based on sR1, hereby called the sR1 method, can solve crystal structures (with up to 156 non-hydrogen atoms in the unit cell). The strategy to carry out this calculation has also been optimized. The main feature of the sR1 method is that, starting from a single arbitrarily positioned atom, the structure is gradually revealed. With the user\'s help to delete poorly determined parts of the structure, the sR1 method can build the model to a high final quality. Thus, sR1 is a viable and useful tool for solving crystal structures.

Macromolecular crystallography generally requires the recovery of missing phase information from diffraction data to reconstruct an electron-density map of the crystallized molecule. Most recent structures have been solved using molecular replacement as a phasing method, requiring an a priori structure that is closely related to the target protein to serve as a search model; when no such search model exists, molecular replacement is not possible. New advances in computational machine-learning methods, however, have resulted in major advances in protein structure predictions from sequence information. Methods that generate predicted structural models of sufficient accuracy provide a powerful approach to molecular replacement. Taking advantage of these advances, AlphaFold predictions were applied to enable structure determination of a bacterial protein of unknown function (UniProtKB Q63NT7, NCBI locus BPSS0212) based on diffraction data that had evaded phasing attempts using MIR and anomalous scattering methods. Using both X-ray and micro-electron (microED) diffraction data, it was possible to solve the structure of the main fragment of the protein using a predicted model of that domain as a starting point. The use of predicted structural models importantly expands the promise of electron diffraction, where structure determination relies critically on molecular replacement.

Highly accurate protein structure prediction can generate accurate models of protein and protein-protein complexes in X-ray crystallography. However, the question of how to make more effective use of predicted models for completing structure analysis, and which strategies should be employed for the more challenging cases such as multi-helical structures, multimeric structures and extremely large structures, both in the model preparation and in the completion steps, remains open for discussion. In this paper, a new strategy is proposed based on the framework of direct methods and dual-space iteration, which can greatly simplify the pre-processing steps of predicted models both in normal and in challenging cases. Following this strategy, full-length models or the conservative structural domains could be used directly as the starting model, and the phase error and the model bias between the starting model and the real structure would be modified in the direct-methods-based dual-space iteration. Many challenging cases (from CASP14) have been tested for the general applicability of this constructive strategy, and almost complete models have been generated with reasonable statistics. The hybrid strategy therefore provides a meaningful scheme for X-ray structure determination using a predicted model as the starting point.

The prediction of RNA three-dimensional structures remains an unsolved problem. Here, we report assessments of RNA structure predictions in CASP15, the first CASP exercise that involved RNA structure modeling. Forty-two predictor groups submitted models for at least one of twelve RNA-containing targets. These models were evaluated by the RNA-Puzzles organizers and, separately, by a CASP-recruited team using metrics (GDT, lDDT) and approaches (Z-score rankings) initially developed for assessment of proteins and generalized here for RNA assessment. The two assessments independently ranked the same predictor groups as first (AIchemy_RNA2), second (Chen), and third (RNAPolis and GeneSilico, tied); predictions from deep learning approaches were significantly worse than these top ranked groups, which did not use deep learning. Further analyses based on direct comparison of predicted models to cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM) maps and x-ray diffraction data support these rankings. With the exception of two RNA-protein complexes, models submitted by CASP15 groups correctly predicted the global fold of the RNA targets. Comparisons of CASP15 submissions to designed RNA nanostructures as well as molecular replacement trials highlight the potential utility of current RNA modeling approaches for RNA nanotechnology and structural biology, respectively. Nevertheless, challenges remain in modeling fine details such as noncanonical pairs, in ranking among submitted models, and in prediction of multiple structures resolved by cryo-EM or crystallography.

The resolution of 3D electron diffraction (ED) data of small-molecule crystals is often relatively poor, due to either electron-beam radiation damage during data collection or poor crystallinity of the material. Direct methods, used as standard for crystal structure determination, are not applicable when the data resolution falls below the commonly accepted limit of 1.2 Å. Therefore an evaluation was carried out of the performance of molecular replacement (MR) procedures, regularly used for protein structure determination, for structure analysis of small-molecule crystal structures from 3D ED data. In the course of this study, two crystal structures of Bi-3812, a highly potent inhibitor of the oncogenic transcription factor BCL6, were determined: the structure of α-Bi-3812 was determined from single-crystal X-ray data, the structure of β-Bi-3812 from 3D ED data, using direct methods in both cases. These data were subsequently used for MR with different data types, varying the data resolution limit (1, 1.5 and 2 Å) and by using search models consisting of connected or disconnected fragments of BI-3812. MR was successful with 3D ED data at 2 Å resolution using a search model that represented 74% of the complete molecule.

The results of tertiary structure assessment at CASP15 are reported. For the first time, recognizing the outstanding performance of AlphaFold 2 (AF2) at CASP14, all single-chain predictions were assessed together, irrespective of whether a template was available. At CASP15, there was no single stand-out group, with most of the best-scoring groups-led by PEZYFoldings, UM-TBM, and Yang Server-employing AF2 in one way or another. Many top groups paid special attention to generating deep Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs) and testing variant MSAs, thereby allowing them to successfully address some of the hardest targets. Such difficult targets, as well as lacking templates, were typically proteins with few homologues. Local divergence between prediction and target correlated with localization at crystal lattice or chain interfaces, and with regions exhibiting high B-factor factors in crystal structure targets, and should not necessarily be considered as representing error in the prediction. However, analysis of exposed and buried side chain accuracy showed room for improvement even in the latter. Nevertheless, a majority of groups produced high-quality predictions for most targets, which are valuable for experimental structure determination, functional analysis, and many other tasks across biology. These include those applying methods similar to those used to generate major resources such as the AlphaFold Protein Structure Database and the ESM Metagenomic atlas: the confidence estimates of the former were also notably accurate.

The marvel of X-ray crystallography is the beauty and precision of the atomic structures deduced from diffraction patterns. Since these patterns record only amplitudes, phases for the diffracted waves must also be evaluated for systematic structure determination. Thus, we have the phase problem as a central complication, both intellectually for the field and practically so for many analyses. Here, I discuss how we - myself, my laboratory and the diffraction community - have faced the phase problem, considering the evolution of methods for phase evaluation as structural biology developed to the present day. During the explosive growth of macromolecular crystallography, practice in diffraction analysis evolved from a universal reliance on isomorphous replacement to the eventual domination of anomalous diffraction for de novo structure determination. As the Protein Data Bank (PDB) grew and familial relationships among proteins became clear, molecular replacement overtook all other phasing methods; however, experimental phasing remained essential for molecules without obvious precedents, with multi- and single-wavelength anomalous diffraction (MAD and SAD) predominating. While the mathematics-based direct methods had proved to be inadequate for typical macromolecules, they returned to crack substantial selenium substructures in SAD analyses of selenomethionyl proteins. Native SAD, exploiting the intrinsic S and P atoms of biomolecules, has become routine. Selenomethionyl SAD and MAD were the mainstays of structural genomics efforts to populate the PDB with novel proteins. A recent dividend has been paid in the success of PDB-trained artificial intelligence approaches for protein structure prediction. Currently, molecular replacement with AlphaFold models often obviates the need for experimental phase evaluation. For multiple reasons, we are now unfazed by the phase problem. Cryo-EM analysis is an attractive alternative to crystallography for many applications faced by today\'s structural biologists. It simply finesses the phase problem; however, the principles and procedures of diffraction analysis remain pertinent and are adopted in single-particle cryo-EM studies of biomolecules.

In late 2020, the results of CASP14, the 14th event in a series of competitions to assess the latest developments in computational protein structure-prediction methodology, revealed the giant leap forward that had been made by Google\'s Deepmind in tackling the prediction problem. The level of accuracy in their predictions was the first instance of a competitor achieving a global distance test score of better than 90 across all categories of difficulty. This achievement represents both a challenge and an opportunity for the field of experimental structural biology. For structure determination by macromolecular X-ray crystallography, access to highly accurate structure predictions is of great benefit, particularly when it comes to solving the phase problem. Here, details of new utilities and enhanced applications in the CCP4 suite, designed to allow users to exploit predicted models in determining macromolecular structures from X-ray diffraction data, are presented. The focus is mainly on applications that can be used to solve the phase problem through molecular replacement.

A description of REMO22, a new molecular replacement program for proteins and nucleic acids, is provided. This program, as with REMO09, can use various types of prior information through appropriate conditional distribution functions. Its efficacy in model searching has been validated through several test cases involving proteins and nucleic acids. Although REMO22 can be configured with different protocols according to user directives, it has been developed primarily as an automated tool for determining the crystal structures of macromolecules. To evaluate REMO22\'s utility in the current crystallographic environment, its experimental results must be compared favorably with those of the most widely used Molecular Replacement (MR) programs. To accomplish this, we chose two leading tools in the field, PHASER and MOLREP. REMO22, along with MOLREP and PHASER, were included in pipelines that contain two additional steps: phase refinement (SYNERGY) and automated model building (CAB). To evaluate the effectiveness of REMO22, SYNERGY and CAB, we conducted experimental tests on numerous macromolecular structures. The results indicate that REMO22, along with its pipeline REMO22 + SYNERGY + CAB, presents a viable alternative to currently used phasing tools.