4.7 Article

Limits of Resolution and Sensitivity of Proton Detected MAS Solid-State NMR Experiments at 111 kHz in Deuterated and Protonated Proteins

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-07253-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Re1435, SFB-1035, B07]
  3. Center for Integrated Protein Science Munich (CIPS-M)
  4. European Union's Horizon research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [657682]
  5. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [657682] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MAS solid-state NMR is capable of determining structures of protonated solid proteins using proton-detected experiments. These experiments are performed at MAS rotation frequency of around 110 kHz, employing 0.5 mg of material. Here, we compare H-1, C-13 correlation spectra obtained from protonated and deuterated microcrystalline proteins at MAS rotation frequency of 111 kHz, and show that the spectral quality obtained from deuterated samples is superior to those acquired using protonated samples in terms of resolution and sensitivity. In comparison to protonated samples, spectra obtained from deuterated samples yield a gain in resolution on the order of 3 and 2 in the proton and carbon dimensions, respectively. Additionally, the spectrum from the deuterated sample yields approximately 2-3 times more sensitivity compared to the spectrum of a protonated sample. This gain could be further increased by a factor of 2 by making use of stereospecific precursors for biosynthesis. Although the overall resolution and sensitivity of H-1, C-13 correlation spectra obtained using protonated solid samples with rotation frequencies on the order of 110 kHz is high, the spectral quality is still poor when compared to the deuterated samples. We believe that experiments involving large protein complexes in which sensitivity is limiting will benefit from the application of deuteration schemes.

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

4.7
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