Literature DB >> 8496968

Exploring the limits of precision and accuracy of protein structures determined by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

G M Clore1, M A Robien, A M Gronenborn.   

Abstract

The effects of the number, precision and accuracy of interproton distance restraints, of direct refinement against nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE) intensities and of the description of the non-bonded contacts on the precision and accuracy of a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) protein structure determination have been investigated. The model system employed is the 56 residue immunoglobulin G binding domain of streptococcal protein G. This choice was based on the availability of a very high resolution NMR structure (atomic root-mean-square distribution of the ensemble of 60 calculated structures about the mean co-ordinate positions of 0.25 A for the backbone atoms, 0.65 A for all atoms and 0.39 A for all atoms excluding disordered surface side-chains). The experimental NMR data set for this structure determination comprised a total of 1058 experimental restraints of which 854 were approximate interproton distance restraints corresponding to all the structurally useful NOEs observable for this protein. The calculations presented in this paper reveal the following. (1) The number of interproton distance restraints constitutes the single most important determinant of both precision and accuracy. The ensemble precision and accuracy improves significantly as the number of interproton distance restraints is increased to an average of approximately 15 per residue, of which approximately 60% involve unique proton pairs; subsequent additions of interproton distance restraints, however, lead to less dramatic improvements as information redundancy sets in. (2) The ratio of ensemble precision to ensemble accuracy (which ranges from 0.5 to 0.7 for the backbone atoms) is approximately independent both of the number, precision and accuracy of the interproton distance restraints, and of whether the structures are refined against interproton distance restraints or directly against NOE intensities. (3) In an ensemble of structures generated from a large number of loose approximate interproton distance restraints (an average of approximately 15 restraints per residue with approximately 60% involving unique proton pairs), the interproton distance vectors corresponding to the restraints are very well defined with approximately 80% of vectors between unique proton pairs having a standard deviation of < or = 0.1 A. (4) The accuracy of the mean co-ordinates of an ensemble of structures is significantly higher than the average accuracy of the individual structures comprising the ensemble. For an average ensemble precision of > or = 0.6 A, the dependence of the accuracy of the mean co-ordinates on ensemble precision is approximately linear.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8496968     DOI: 10.1006/jmbi.1993.1259

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Biol        ISSN: 0022-2836            Impact factor:   5.469


  39 in total

1.  Completeness of NOEs in protein structure: a statistical analysis of NMR.

Authors:  J F Doreleijers; M L Raves; T Rullmann; R Kaptein
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.835

2.  Variability in automated assignment of NOESY spectra and three-dimensional structure determination: a test case on three small disulfide-bonded proteins.

Authors:  P Savarin; S Zinn-Justin; B Gilquin
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.835

3.  A cavity-forming mutation in insulin induces segmental unfolding of a surrounding alpha-helix.

Authors:  Bin Xu; Qing-Xin Hua; Satoe H Nakagawa; Wenhua Jia; Ying-Chi Chu; Panayotis G Katsoyannis; Michael A Weiss
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 6.725

4.  The precision of NMR structure ensembles revisited.

Authors:  Chris A E M Spronk; Sander B Nabuurs; Alexandre M J J Bonvin; Elmar Krieger; Geerten W Vuister; Gert Vriend
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.835

5.  Integrative structure modeling of macromolecular assemblies from proteomics data.

Authors:  Keren Lasker; Jeremy L Phillips; Daniel Russel; Javier Velázquez-Muriel; Dina Schneidman-Duhovny; Elina Tjioe; Ben Webb; Avner Schlessinger; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 5.911

6.  Improved simulation of NOESY spectra by RELAX-JT2 including effects of J-coupling, transverse relaxation and chemical shift anisotrophy.

Authors:  Andreas Ried; Wolfram Gronwald; Jochen M Trenner; Konrad Brunner; Klaus-Peter Neidig; Hans Robert Kalbitzer
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.835

7.  Definition of a new information-based per-residue quality parameter.

Authors:  Sander B Nabuurs; Elmar Krieger; Chris A E M Spronk; Aart J Nederveen; Gert Vriend; Geerten W Vuister
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.835

8.  AUREMOL-RFAC-3D, combination of R-factors and their use for automated quality assessment of protein solution structures.

Authors:  Wolfram Gronwald; Konrad Brunner; Renate Kirchhöfer; Jochen Trenner; Klaus-Peter Neidig; Hans Robert Kalbitzer
Journal:  J Biomol NMR       Date:  2006-11-29       Impact factor: 2.835

9.  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

10.  The micelle-associated 3D structures of Boc-Y(SO3)-Nle-G-W-Nle-D-2-phenylethylester (JMV-180) and CCK-8(s) share conformational elements of a calculated CCK1 receptor-bound model.

Authors:  Mohanraja Kumar; Joseph R Reeve; Weidong Hu; Laurence J Miller; David A Keire
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2008-06-10       Impact factor: 7.446

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.