4.3 Article

Automated NMR structure determination of stereo-array isotope labeled ubiquitin from minimal sets of spectra using the SAIL-FLYA system

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMOLECULAR NMR
卷 44, 期 4, 页码 261-272

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10858-009-9339-6

关键词

Automated structure determination; CYANA; FLYA; SAIL; Structure validation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stereo-array isotope labeling (SAIL) has been combined with the fully automated NMR structure determination algorithm FLYA to determine the three-dimensional structure of the protein ubiquitin from different sets of input NMR spectra. SAIL provides a complete stereo- and regio-specific pattern of stable isotopes that results in sharper resonance lines and reduced signal overlap, without information loss. Here we show that as a result of the superior quality of the SAIL NMR spectra, reliable, fully automated analyses of the NMR spectra and structure calculations are possible using fewer input spectra than with conventional uniformly C-13/N-15-labeled proteins. FLYA calculations with SAIL ubiquitin, using a single three-dimensional through-bond spectrum (and 2D HSQC spectra) in addition to the C-13-edited and N-15-edited NOESY spectra for conformational restraints, yielded structures with an accuracy of 0.83-1.15 a<< for the backbone RMSD to the conventionally determined solution structure of SAIL ubiquitin. NMR structures can thus be determined almost exclusively from the NOESY spectra that yield the conformational restraints, without the need to record many spectra only for determining intermediate, auxiliary data of the chemical shift assignments. The FLYA calculations for this report resulted in 252 ubiquitin structure bundles, obtained with different input data but identical structure calculation and refinement methods. These structures cover the entire range from highly accurate structures to seriously, but not trivially, wrong structures, and thus constitute a valuable database for the substantiation of structure validation methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据