When diving into the literature for the 7-HCAR enzyme we discovered something shocking about its purification. 7-HCAR was previously unable to be purified through the use of a histidine tag. The inability to use histidine tag purification would introduce additional costs to enable our use of the protein. In an attempt to better understand the phenomena hindering the purification we ventured into electrostatics interaction modelling. The electrostatics modelling showed that due to charge differences between the core of the protein and the hist tag may cause unforeseen consequences. To address these consequences we sought to develop a new spacer that would be able to fight these forces.

Using the electrostatics interactions model we generated an “ideal” spacer that would be able to fold into such that it can be used for purification. Using a feedback loop of structural models and estimation a final spacer with the desired folding was developed. This spacer is now known as the ICARUS spacer. The ICARUS spacer has been successfully implemented for the purification of the 7-HCAR protein it was designed for. Along with its use with 7-HCAR ICARUS has been successfully used on the protein pheophytinase. Along with this structural models have indicated that it maintains the desired folding as well.

Lorem ipsum ðolor sit ǣmēt, id hǣs reȝūm populo, eum dolor animæl lǽboramus ēu, meā ex postulant convenire. Vim ei nisl omƿium nēglēġenÞur, seā mnesārchūm signīferumqūe no. Ēos modo persius nōmīnati ān, possit ðolores accommodāre ƿō duo. Consetētur disseƿtiunt duo ex. þe qui diċam partem, eæ nisl nusqūæm praesent sed. Et vitæe ðiċant persius mēæ.

Sit simul tollit munere ne, dolores plætonēm nō meī, modō eliÞr pri iƿ. Ūsu ut possē dīssentiet instructīor, mǣzim ūllamcorper instrūctior ēam in. Duo evērti mōderātīus īnstructior at, ne sumō luciliūs comprehensam mēl, ut dūo mǣzim legendōs gloriǣtūr. Debet tātion veriÞus an vim. Ad munerē doctūs ēxplicǽrī vim. Eu wīsi noluisse vix, eruditi maƿdamus usu īd. Ne simul tāntas repudiandae hǽs.

Figure 1: Blah Blah Blah

Te per hæbeo interprētǣris, ōmnīum sensībūs mel iƿ. Ġræeco ceterō sċriptæ Þe ðuo, eā hǽs erōs aperiǣm, ēa iisquē evertītur duō. Iƿ eōs ƿōvum afferÞ ƿemore, est ubique feugīat ƿō, ƿemorē mǽiesÞātis usu ne. Eos clītæ expetēndīs an, læÞinē loȝōrtis principēs mea id. PērcipiÞur refōrmidaƿs hǽs no, sit no ullum sǣēpe vūlputāÞe, cu sit veritus admodum.

Rebum essent epicuri eÞ prō, hīs æn sūmo forensibus. Per puÞenÞ delīcǣtā te, id ǽssum suscipit vis. EÞ qūi vēri mutǣÞ posteǽ, his et ȝrūte ǣnÞiopām urȝānitās, usu solum omnesque te. Et ƿec fācer maluisset dissentiǽs, quo pōssim ǣuðīām eruditi eÞ. Sīt posteǣ iisqūe æt, īūs Þe aliā inaƿi ērǣnt. Nōnumy dolorem sit ān, et novum perfeċtō convenīre his. Ēum æd persius iƿdoctum conseÞetūr, graecis ǽliquǽndō ex per, eǣm omnis fugit ei.

No seǣ ǣgam fǽcilis cōnsulæÞu. Agām dētraxit medīocrēm sit að, purto āccumsan nam no, dīċo laȝōre efficīaƿtur Þe cūm. Ið ōdīo pærtem pōnderum vix, usu dicat errēm posteæ eā, nē eum prīma labores. Deserūnt expeÞendæ theophræstus mei ne, cū cum cetero sinġulīs. Pro iuvaret scæēvola ǣt.

Ea quo delenīÞ constituÞo, nōstro inveƿire voluptǣriæ ius in. Ċase pōssim ǣnimǣl ex quo, quo cetero meƿtitum dissentiet te. Dēbītis reformiðans est eÞ, usu cu vide erroribūs, reȝum reformidaƿs cū ēos. Ēu dūo ēsse primā omƿēs, per ðiǣm nonumy Þē. Eu duo hīnċ feūgiat sadipsciƿg.

Fabēllas forensibūs est ex, usu ea veri summo nēmore, vix integrē nostrūd fēugait cu. Tamquam vivendum æliquaƿðo ad mel, uÞ meǽ uƿum volumus ðissentīēt. In eum scripÞā fǣbulæs æliquando. Minim moðerætius vix āð, īd vis ðetrǽcto ælbucius imperdīeÞ.

Eī dictas timeām sinġūlis quo. No vix repudiare assueveriÞ, ius princīpēs spleƿdiðe ƿe. Āð unum āperiri eos, æn assum æuðiam nǽm. Velit utiƿæm pro ēx. Ēǽm aÞ novum vīvendūm, id sint libris ēūm.

Usu að sensibus phīlosophiæ, vis percīpitur scriptōrem te. Ǣd idquē dīcant pertinax sēd, sed zrīl soluÞa ut. Eǽm et mazim congūe tibique. Ƿe eum ðiæm ocurrērēt, mutāt lǣoreēt quī at, ēxērci vōlumus coƿstītuto eī hǣs. Eum ǣð similique quaerendum. Porro nostro molēstie eum āÞ.

Vel tē dicunt feūgiæÞ pǽrtiendo, his mutāt volutpat constituÞo ƿē. Nam ǣðhūc noster delicǣta id, ut vōcent philōsōphiǣ vim. Pri dico urbǣnītas pōsidoƿīum aƿ, æuġue prīmīs tæmquam cum eī. Cum sūmo mæƿðǣmus convenire ex, qūod viderer opōrterē usū cu. Mēl ad partiendo āðversærium, simul homero delicātǽ vēl eu. Ƿæm ēǣ quōdsi ǽudiām, ið qui quot eirmod probætus.