Literature DB >> 17623851

A large data set comparison of protein structures determined by crystallography and NMR: statistical test for structural differences and the effect of crystal packing.

Michael Andrec1, David A Snyder, Zhiyong Zhou, Jasmine Young, Gaetano T Montelione, Ronald M Levy.   

Abstract

The existence of a large number of proteins for which both nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and X-ray crystallographic coordinates have been deposited into the Protein Data Bank (PDB) makes the statistical comparison of the corresponding crystal and NMR structural models over a large data set possible, and facilitates the study of the effect of the crystal environment and other factors on structure. We present an approach for detecting statistically significant structural differences between crystal and NMR structural models which is based on structural superposition and the analysis of the distributions of atomic positions relative to a mean structure. We apply this to a set of 148 protein structure pairs (crystal vs NMR), and analyze the results in terms of methodological and physical sources of structural difference. For every one of the 148 structure pairs, the backbone root-mean-square distance (RMSD) over core atoms of the crystal structure to the mean NMR structure is larger than the average RMSD of the members of the NMR ensemble to the mean, with 76% of the structure pairs having an RMSD of the crystal structure to the mean more than a factor of two larger than the average RMSD of the NMR ensemble. On average, the backbone RMSD over core atoms of crystal structure to the mean NMR is approximately 1 A. If non-core atoms are included, this increases to 1.4 A due to the presence of variability in loops and similar regions of the protein. The observed structural differences are only weakly correlated with the age and quality of the structural model and differences in conditions under which the models were determined. We examine steric clashes when a putative crystalline lattice is constructed using a representative NMR structure, and find that repulsive crystal packing plays a minor role in the observed differences between crystal and NMR structures. The observed structural differences likely have a combination of physical and methodological causes. Stabilizing attractive interactions arising from intermolecular crystal contacts which shift the equilibrium of the crystal structure relative to the NMR structure is a likely physical source which can account for some of the observed differences. Methodological sources of apparent structural difference include insufficient sampling or other issues which could give rise to errors in the estimates of the precision and/or accuracy. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17623851     DOI: 10.1002/prot.21507

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proteins        ISSN: 0887-3585


  56 in total

1.  A Bayesian approach for determining protein side-chain rotamer conformations using unassigned NOE data.

Authors:  Jianyang Zeng; Kyle E Roberts; Pei Zhou; Bruce Randall Donald
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 1.479

2.  Resolution-by-proxy: a simple measure for assessing and comparing the overall quality of NMR protein structures.

Authors:  Mark Berjanskii; Jianjun Zhou; Yongjie Liang; Guohui Lin; David S Wishart
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 2.835

3.  Accurate protein structure modeling using sparse NMR data and homologous structure information.

Authors:  James M Thompson; Nikolaos G Sgourakis; Gaohua Liu; Paolo Rossi; Yuefeng Tang; Jeffrey L Mills; Thomas Szyperski; Gaetano T Montelione; David Baker
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-06-04       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  A community resource of experimental data for NMR / X-ray crystal structure pairs.

Authors:  John K Everett; Roberto Tejero; Sarath B K Murthy; Thomas B Acton; James M Aramini; Michael C Baran; Jordi Benach; John R Cort; Alexander Eletsky; Farhad Forouhar; Rongjin Guan; Alexandre P Kuzin; Hsiau-Wei Lee; Gaohua Liu; Rajeswari Mani; Binchen Mao; Jeffrey L Mills; Alexander F Montelione; Kari Pederson; Robert Powers; Theresa Ramelot; Paolo Rossi; Jayaraman Seetharaman; David Snyder; G V T Swapna; Sergey M Vorobiev; Yibing Wu; Rong Xiao; Yunhuang Yang; Cheryl H Arrowsmith; John F Hunt; Michael A Kennedy; James H Prestegard; Thomas Szyperski; Liang Tong; Gaetano T Montelione
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 6.725

5.  Combining NMR ensembles and molecular dynamics simulations provides more realistic models of protein structures in solution and leads to better chemical shift prediction.

Authors:  Juuso Lehtivarjo; Kari Tuppurainen; Tommi Hassinen; Reino Laatikainen; Mikael Peräkylä
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.835

6.  The importance of slow motions for protein functional loops.

Authors:  Aris Skliros; Michael T Zimmermann; Debkanta Chakraborty; Saras Saraswathi; Ataur R Katebi; Sumudu P Leelananda; Andrzej Kloczkowski; Robert L Jernigan
Journal:  Phys Biol       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Comparing NMR and X-ray protein structure: Lindemann-like parameters and NMR disorder.

Authors:  Eshel Faraggi; A Keith Dunker; Joel L Sussman; Andrzej Kloczkowski
Journal:  J Biomol Struct Dyn       Date:  2017-08-08

8.  The war of tools: how can NMR spectroscopists detect errors in their structures?

Authors:  Edoardo Saccenti; Antonio Rosato
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 2.835

9.  Heterogeneity and dynamics in villin headpiece crystal structures.

Authors:  Jianmin Meng; Christopher James McKnight
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr       Date:  2009-04-18

10.  The expanded FindCore method for identification of a core atom set for assessment of protein structure prediction.

Authors:  David A Snyder; Jennifer Grullon; Yuanpeng J Huang; Roberto Tejero; Gaetano T Montelione
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2014-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.