Literature DB >> 32105366

Analyses of protein cores reveal fundamental differences between solution and crystal structures.

Zhe Mei1,2, John D Treado1,3, Alex T Grigas1,4, Zachary A Levine5,6, Lynne Regan7, Corey S O'Hern1,3,8,9.   

Abstract

There have been several studies suggesting that protein structures solved by NMR spectroscopy and X-ray crystallography show significant differences. To understand the origin of these differences, we assembled a database of high-quality protein structures solved by both methods. We also find significant differences between NMR and crystal structures-in the root-mean-square deviations of the C α atomic positions, identities of core amino acids, backbone, and side-chain dihedral angles, and packing fraction of core residues. In contrast to prior studies, we identify the physical basis for these differences by modeling protein cores as jammed packings of amino acid-shaped particles. We find that we can tune the jammed packing fraction by varying the degree of thermalization used to generate the packings. For an athermal protocol, we find that the average jammed packing fraction is identical to that observed in the cores of protein structures solved by X-ray crystallography. In contrast, highly thermalized packing-generation protocols yield jammed packing fractions that are even higher than those observed in NMR structures. These results indicate that thermalized systems can pack more densely than athermal systems, which suggests a physical basis for the structural differences between protein structures solved by NMR and X-ray crystallography.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  core packing fraction; high-quality NMR structures; high-resolution X-ray crystallography; hydrophobic amino acids; protocol dependence

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32105366      PMCID: PMC7415476          DOI: 10.1002/prot.25884

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


  20 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Comparison of X-ray and NMR structures: is there a systematic difference in residue contacts between X-ray- and NMR-resolved protein structures?

Authors:  Sergiy O Garbuzynskiy; Bogdan S Melnik; Michail Yu Lobanov; Alexei V Finkelstein; Oxana V Galzitskaya
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2005-07-01

3.  Relation between native ensembles and experimental structures of proteins.

Authors:  Robert B Best; Kresten Lindorff-Larsen; Mark A DePristo; Michele Vendruscolo
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-07-07       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-Round XII.

Authors:  John Moult; Krzysztof Fidelis; Andriy Kryshtafovych; Torsten Schwede; Anna Tramontano
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2017-12-15

5.  Insights into equilibrium dynamics of proteins from comparison of NMR and X-ray data with computational predictions.

Authors:  Lee-Wei Yang; Eran Eyal; Chakra Chennubhotla; JunGoo Jee; Angela M Gronenborn; Ivet Bahar
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.006

6.  Accessing protein conformational ensembles using room-temperature X-ray crystallography.

Authors:  James S Fraser; Henry van den Bedem; Avi J Samelson; P Therese Lang; James M Holton; Nathaniel Echols; Tom Alber
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Comparing side chain packing in soluble proteins, protein-protein interfaces, and transmembrane proteins.

Authors:  J C Gaines; S Acebes; A Virrueta; M Butler; L Regan; C S O'Hern
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2018-02-26

8.  X-ray vs. NMR structures as templates for computational protein design.

Authors:  Michael Schneider; Xiaoran Fu; Amy E Keating
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2009-10

9.  Systematic comparison of crystal and NMR protein structures deposited in the protein data bank.

Authors:  Kresimir Sikic; Sanja Tomic; Oliviero Carugo
Journal:  Open Biochem J       Date:  2010-09-03

10.  Protein NMR structures refined with Rosetta have higher accuracy relative to corresponding X-ray crystal structures.

Authors:  Binchen Mao; Roberto Tejero; David Baker; Gaetano T Montelione
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 15.419

View more
  3 in total

1.  Core packing of well-defined X-ray and NMR structures is the same.

Authors:  Alex T Grigas; Zhuoyi Liu; Lynne Regan; Corey S O'Hern
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 6.993

2.  The structural, vibrational, and mechanical properties of jammed packings of deformable particles in three dimensions.

Authors:  Dong Wang; John D Treado; Arman Boromand; Blake Norwick; Michael P Murrell; Mark D Shattuck; Corey S O'Hern
Journal:  Soft Matter       Date:  2021-11-10       Impact factor: 4.046

3.  Molecular Dynamics Simulations of a Cytochrome P450 from Tepidiphilus thermophilus (P450-TT) Reveal How Its Substrate-Binding Channel Opens.

Authors:  Abayomi S Faponle; Anupom Roy; Ayodeji A Adelegan; James W Gauld
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2021-06-12       Impact factor: 4.411

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.