| Literature DB >> 30002839 |
Lingxiao Zeng1, Wei Ding2, Quan Hao1,2.
Abstract
X-ray crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) are complementary techniques for structure determination. Crystallography usually reveals more detailed information, while cryo-EM is an extremely useful technique for studying large-sized macromolecules. As the gap between the resolution of crystallography and cryo-EM data narrows, the cryo-EM map of a macromolecule could serve as an initial model to solve the phase problem of crystal diffraction for high-resolution structure determination. FSEARCH is a procedure to utilize the low-resolution molecular shape for crystallographic phasing. The IPCAS (Iterative Protein Crystal structure Automatic Solution) pipeline is an automatic direct-methods-aided dual-space iterative phasing and model-building procedure. When only an electron-density map is available as the starting point, IPCAS is capable of generating a completed model from the phases of the input map automatically, without the requirement of an initial model. In this study, a hybrid method integrating X-ray crystallography with cryo-EM to help with structure determination is presented. With a cryo-EM map as the starting point, the workflow of the method involves three steps. (1) Cryo-EM map replacement: FSEARCH is utilized to find the correct translation and orientation of the cryo-EM map in the crystallographic unit cell and generates the initial low-resolution map. (2) Phase extension: the phases calculated from the correctly placed cryo-EM map are extended to high-resolution X-ray data by non-crystallographic symmetry averaging with phenix.resolve. (3) Model building: IPCAS is used to generate an initial model using the phase-extended map and perform model completion by iteration. Four cases (the lowest cryo-EM map resolution being 6.9 Å) have been tested for the general applicability of the hybrid method, and almost complete models have been generated for all test cases with reasonable Rwork/Rfree. The hybrid method therefore provides an automated tool for X-ray structure determination using a cryo-EM map as the starting point.Entities:
Keywords: FSEARCH; IPCAS; X-ray crystallography; cryo-EM; cryo-electron microscopy; iterative phasing; model building; phase problem; structure determination
Year: 2018 PMID: 30002839 PMCID: PMC6038958 DOI: 10.1107/S2052252518005857
Source DB: PubMed Journal: IUCrJ ISSN: 2052-2525 Impact factor: 4.769
Figure 1Workflow of a hybrid method integrating X-ray crystallography with cryo-EM for structure determination.
Cryo-EM and X-ray diffraction data used in the case studies
| Case study 1 | Case study 2 | Case study 3 | Case study 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cryo-EM data | ||||
| EMDB ID | 4037 | 9511 | 5593 | 3125 |
| Resolution (Å) | 4.2 | 4.35 | 6.9 | 4.87 |
| Reference | Alfieri | Huang | Park | Song |
| X-ray diffraction data | ||||
| PDB entry | 4rg6 | 5lf7 | 5cz4 | 4z0c |
| Resolution (Å) | 3.3 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
| Space group |
|
|
|
|
| Unit-cell parameters | ||||
|
| 116.7, 116.7, 185.0 | 113.4, 202.6, 314.5 | 137.0, 300.9, 145.8 | 112.6, 115.2, 167.6 |
| α, β, γ (°) | 90, 90, 90 | 90, 90, 90 | 90, 113.1, 90 | 90, 90, 90 |
| Protein residues | 1163 | 6458 | 6614 | 1444 |
| NCS copies | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Reference | Yamaguchi | Schrader | Huber | Song |
Molecular-replacement solutions for four test cases
The results are given in ascending order of R factor for the top three solutions. The top solution was chosen to place the map in the unit cell and was output to .mtz files.
| α (°) | β (°) | γ (°) |
|
|
|
| Correlation coefficient | Starting FOM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case study 1 | |||||||||
| Coarse search | 105 | 60 | 295 | 4 | 50 | 0 | 0.549 | 0.504 | |
| 100 | 60 | 300 | 2 | 50 | 0 | 0.564 | 0.478 | ||
| 105 | 65 | 295 | 2 | 52 | 0 | 0.569 | 0.458 | ||
| Finer search | 104 | 61 | 296 | 3 | 51 | 0 | 0.539 | 0.524 | 0.484 |
| Case study 2 | |||||||||
| Coarse search | 78 | 90 | 354 | 15 | 27 | 150 | 0.570 | 0.364 | |
| 78 | 90 | 351 | 9 | 30 | 153 | 0.589 | 0.307 | ||
| 78 | 90 | 354 | 12 | 24 | 150 | 0.606 | 0.263 | ||
| Finer search | 75 | 89 | 353 | 8 | 25 | 149 | 0.528 | 0.465 | 0.540 |
| Case study 3 | |||||||||
| Coarse search | 280 | 5 | 85 | 48 | 0 | 8 | 0.548 | 0.232 | |
| 290 | 5 | 75 | 44 | 0 | 10 | 0.551 | 0.224 | ||
| 285 | 5 | 80 | 46 | 0 | 10 | 0.557 | 0.211 | ||
| Finer search | 293 | 5 | 70 | 39 | 0 | 12 | 0.519 | 0.303 | 0.587 |
| Case study 4 | |||||||||
| Coarse search | 325 | 50 | 295 | 40 | 38 | 76 | 0.595 | 0.300 | |
| 330 | 50 | 290 | 38 | 38 | 74 | 0.606 | 0.272 | ||
| 330 | 50 | 295 | 30 | 30 | 78 | 0.609 | 0.261 | ||
| Finer search | 329 | 49 | 293 | 34 | 35 | 73 | 0.565 | 0.364 | 0.532 |
Figure 2Plot of figure-of-merit-weighted mean phase error (FOM-wMPE) calculated against the crystal structure at the key steps of the whole process.
Figure 3Method comparison, case study 1. (a) Model from IPCAS; (b) model from IPCAS superimposed with the crystal structure (PDB entry 4rg6); (c) model from Phenix.AutoBuild; (d) model from Buccaneer.
Phase-extension and model-completion results
The numbers in parentheses for the number of residues built are given as percentages.
| Case study 1 | Case study 2 | Case study 3 | Case study 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| No. of residues built | 1116 (96) | 6283 (97) | 6445 (97) | 1406 (97) |
|
| 23.5/31.9 | 23.7/28.6 | 21.7/24.9 | 27.1/32.9 |
|
| ||||
| No. of residues built | 1118 (96) | 6312 (98) | 6521 (99) | 1418 (98) |
|
| 26.7/34.9 | 23.8/28.5 | 22.4/26.0 | 28.0/34.6 |
|
| ||||
| No. of residues built | 703 (60) | 4614 (71) | 5229 (79) | 1309 (91) |
|
| 29.6/33.7 | 29.8/33.6 | 26.7/30.1 | 30.5/35.1 |
|
| ||||
| No. of residues built | 706 (61) | 5094 (79) | 3136 (47) | 1208 (84) |
|
| 48.1/50.8 | 38.9/42.7 | 51.5/53.5 | 48.0/50.7 |
Figure 4Method comparison, case study 2. (a) Model from IPCAS; (b) model from IPCAS superimposed with the crystal structure (PDB entry 5lf7); (c) model from Phenix.AutoBuild; (d) model from Buccaneer.
Figure 5Method comparison, case study 3. (a) Model from IPCAS; (b) model from IPCAS superimposed with the crystal structure (PDB entry 5cz4); (c) model from Phenix.AutoBuild; (d) model from Buccaneer.
Figure 6Method comparison, case study 4. (a) Model from IPCAS; (b) model from IPCAS superimposed with the crystal structure (PDB entry 4z0c); (c) model from Phenix.AutoBuild; (d) model from Buccaneer.