4.8 Article

Accurate protein structure modeling using sparse NMR data and homologous structure information

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1202485109

关键词

biochemistry; biophysics; computational biology; nuclear magnetic resonance; structural genomics

资金

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [1R01-GM092802-01]
  3. NIH PSI-Biology Grant [U54-GM094597]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While information from homologous structures plays a central role in X-ray structure determination by molecular replacement, such information is rarely used in NMR structure determination because it can be incorrect, both locally and globally, when evolutionary relationships are inferred incorrectly or there has been considerable evolutionary structural divergence. Here we describe a method that allows robust modeling of protein structures of up to 225 residues by combining H-1(N), C-13, and N-15 backbone and C-13 beta chemical shift data, distance restraints derived from homologous structures, and a physically realistic all-atom energy function. Accurate models are distinguished from inaccurate models generated using incorrect sequence alignments by requiring that (i) the all-atom energies of models generated using the restraints are lower than models generated in unrestrained calculations and (ii) the low-energy structures converge to within 2.0 angstrom backbone rmsd over 75% of the protein. Benchmark calculations on known structures and blind targets show that the method can accurately model protein structures, even with very remote homology information, to a backbone rmsd of 1.2-1.9 angstrom relative to the conventional determined NMR ensembles and of 0.9-1.6 angstrom relative to X-ray structures for well-defined regions of the protein structures. This approach facilitates the accurate modeling of protein structures using backbone chemical shift data without need for side-chain resonance assignments and extensive analysis of NOESY cross-peak assignments.

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

4.8
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