Literature DB >> 20001057

The physical basis of model-free analysis of NMR relaxation data from proteins and complex fluids.

Bertil Halle1.   

Abstract

NMR relaxation experiments have provided a wealth of information about molecular motions in macromolecules and ordered fluids. Even though a rigorous theory of spin relaxation is available, the complexity of the investigated systems often makes the interpretation of limited datasets challenging and ambiguous. To allow physically meaningful information to be extracted from the data without commitment to detailed dynamical models, several versions of a model-free (MF) approach to data analysis have been developed. During the past 2 decades, the MF approach has been used in the vast majority of all NMR relaxation studies of internal motions in proteins and other macromolecules, and it has also played an important role in studies of colloidal systems. Although the MF approach has been almost universally adopted, substantial disagreement remains about its physical foundations and range of validity. It is our aim here to clarify these issues. To this end, we first present rigorous derivations of the three well-known MF formulas for the time correlation function relevant for isotropic solutions. These derivations are more general than the original ones, thereby substantially extending the range of validity of the MF approach. We point out several common misconceptions and explain the physical significance of the approximations involved. In particular, we discuss symmetry requirements and the dynamical decoupling approximation that plays a key role in the MF approach. We also derive a new MF formula, applicable to anisotropic fluids and solids, including microcrystalline protein samples. The so-called slowly relaxing local structure (SRLS) model has been advanced as an alternative to the MF approach that does not require dynamical decoupling of internal and global motions. To resolve the existing controversy about the relative merits of the SRLS model and the MF approach, we formulate and solve a planar version of the SRLS model. The analytical solution of this model reveals the unphysical consequences of the symmetrical two-body Smoluchowski equation as applied to protein dynamics, thus refuting the widely held belief that the SRLS model is more accurate than the MF approach. The different results obtained by analyzing data with these two approaches therefore do not indicate the importance of dynamical coupling between internal and global motions. Finally, we explore the two principal mechanisms of dynamical coupling in proteins: torque-mediated and friction-mediated coupling. We argue by way of specific analytically solvable models that torque-mediated coupling (which the SRLS model attempts to capture) is unimportant because the relatively slow internal motions that might couple to the global motion tend to be intermittent (jumplike) in character, whereas friction-mediated coupling (which neither the SRLS model nor the MF approach incorporates) may be important for proteins with unstructured parts or flexibly connected domains.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20001057     DOI: 10.1063/1.3269991

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Phys        ISSN: 0021-9606            Impact factor:   3.488


  21 in total

1.  Comment on "The physical basis of model-free analysis of NMR relaxation data from proteins and complex fluids" [J. Chem. Phys. 131, 224507 (2009)].

Authors:  Eva Meirovitch; Antonino Polimeno; Jack H Freed
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2010-05-28       Impact factor: 3.488

2.  Nonexponential decay of internal rotational correlation functions of native proteins and self-similar structural fluctuations.

Authors:  Yoann Cote; Patrick Senet; Patrice Delarue; Gia G Maisuradze; Harold A Scheraga
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  NMR studies on domain diffusion and alignment in modular GB1 repeats.

Authors:  Joseph D Walsh; Katlyn Meier; Rieko Ishima; Angela M Gronenborn
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 4.033

Review 4.  NMR studies of dynamic biomolecular conformational ensembles.

Authors:  Dennis A Torchia
Journal:  Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 9.795

5.  Temperature dependence of fast carbonyl backbone dynamics in chicken villin headpiece subdomain.

Authors:  Liliya Vugmeyster; Dmitry Ostrovsky
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 2.835

6.  Methylation of lysine 9 in histone H3 directs alternative modes of highly dynamic interaction of heterochromatin protein hHP1β with the nucleosome.

Authors:  Francesca Munari; Szabolcs Soeroes; Hans Michael Zenn; Adrian Schomburg; Nils Kost; Sabrina Schröder; Rebecca Klingberg; Nasrollah Rezaei-Ghaleh; Alexandra Stützer; Kathy Ann Gelato; Peter Jomo Walla; Stefan Becker; Dirk Schwarzer; Bastian Zimmermann; Wolfgang Fischle; Markus Zweckstetter
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 5.157

7.  Characterization of Internal Protein Dynamics and Conformational Entropy by NMR Relaxation.

Authors:  Matthew A Stetz; José A Caro; Sravya Kotaru; Xuejun Yao; Bryan S Marques; Kathleen G Valentine; A Joshua Wand
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  2018-12-08       Impact factor: 1.600

8.  Water-proton-spin-lattice-relaxation dispersion of paramagnetic protein solutions.

Authors:  Galina Diakova; Yanina Goddard; Jean-Pierre Korb; Robert G Bryant
Journal:  J Magn Reson       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 2.229

9.  Coupled motion in proteins revealed by pressure perturbation.

Authors:  Yinan Fu; Vignesh Kasinath; Veronica R Moorman; Nathaniel V Nucci; Vincent J Hilser; A Joshua Wand
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 15.419

10.  Protein flexibility and conformational entropy in ligand design targeting the carbohydrate recognition domain of galectin-3.

Authors:  Carl Diehl; Olof Engström; Tamara Delaine; Maria Håkansson; Samuel Genheden; Kristofer Modig; Hakon Leffler; Ulf Ryde; Ulf J Nilsson; Mikael Akke
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 15.419

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.