4.3 Article

A comparative analysis of the equilibrium dynamics of a designed protein inferred from NMR, X-ray, and computations

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/prot.22518

关键词

equilibrium dynamics; ensemble of conformations; inter-residue contact topology; crystal contacts; elastic network model; sugar-binding protein

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [5R01GM086238, 5R01LM007994, GM080642]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A detailed analysis of high-resolution structural data and. computationally predicted dynamics was carried cut for a designed sugar-binding protein. The mean-square deviations in the positions of residues derived from nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) models and those inferred from X-ray crystallographic B-factors for two different crystal forms were compared with the predictions based on the Gaussian Network Model (GNM) and the results from molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. GNM systematically yielded a higher correlation than MD, with experimental data, suggesting that the lack of atomistic details in the coarse-grained GNM is more than compensated for by the mathematically exact evaluation of fluctuations using the native contacts topology. Evidence is provided that particular loop motions are curtailed by intermolecular contacts in the crystal environment causing a discrepancy between theory and experiments. Interestingly, the information conveyed by X-ray crystallography becomes more consistent with NMR models and computational predictions when ensembles of X-ray models are considered. Less precise (broadly distributed) ensembles indeed appear to describe the accessible conformational space under native state conditions better than B-factors. Our results highlight the importance of using multiple conformations obtained by alternative experimental methods, and analyzing results from both coarse-grained models and atomic simulations, for accurate assessment of motions accessible to proteins under native state conditions. Proteins 2009; 77:927-939. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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