4.8 Article

A multi-crystal method for extracting obscured crystallographic states from conventionally uninterpretable electron density

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15123

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/G037280/1]
  2. UCB Pharma
  3. Diamond Light Source
  4. AbbVie
  5. Bayer
  6. Boehringer Ingelheim
  7. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  8. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  9. Genome Canada
  10. GlaxoSmithKline
  11. Janssen
  12. Lilly Canada
  13. Novartis Research Foundation
  14. Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation
  15. Pfizer
  16. Takeda
  17. Wellcome Trust [092809/Z/10/Z]
  18. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [1231954] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In macromolecular crystallography, the rigorous detection of changed states (for example, ligand binding) is difficult unless signal is strong. Ambiguous ('weak' or 'noisy') density is experimentally common, since molecular states are generally only fractionally present in the crystal. Existing methodologies focus on generating maximally accurate maps whereby minor states become discernible; in practice, such map interpretation is disappointingly subjective, time-consuming and methodologically unsound. Here we report the PanDDA method, which automatically reveals clear electron density for the changed state-even from inaccurate maps-by subtracting a proportion of the confounding 'ground state'; changed states are objectively identified from statistical analysis of density distributions. The method is completely general, implying new best practice for all changed-state studies, including the routine collection of multiple ground-state crystals. More generally, these results demonstrate: the incompleteness of atomic models; that single data sets contain insufficient information to model them fully; and that accuracy requires further map-deconvolution approaches.

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