3.8 Article

Improving the scattering-factor formalism in protein refinement: application of the University at Buffalo Aspherical-Atom Databank to polypeptide structures

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1107/S0907444906044453

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM56829] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The University at Buffalo theoretical databank of aspherical pseudoatoms has been tested in the refinement of high-resolution (HR; d(max) <= 0.44 angstrom) and truncated 'low-resolution' (LR; d(max) = 0.83 angstrom) X-ray diffraction data sets from the tripeptide Tyr-Gly-Gly monohydrate [Pichon-Pesme et al. (2000), Acta Cryst. B56, 728-737] and hexapeptide cyclo-(D, L-Pro) (2)-(L-Ala)(4) monohydrate [Dittrich et al. (2002), Acta Cryst. B58, 721-727]. Application of the databank to LR data significantly lowers the conventional R factor, improves the determination of bonds and angles to within 0.002-0.003 A and 0.09-0.17 degrees of the values obtained from a complete multipolar refinement of HR data sets, improves the determination of phase angles by 2- 6 degrees compared with the standard independent atom refinement (IAM), removes the majority of the bonding features from the residual Fourier difference maps and improves the atomic displacement parameters (ADPs) and the results of the Hirshfeld rigidbond test. In the description of the aspherical density from experimental X- ray data, theoretical pseudoatoms were found to perform on the same level as the previously reported experimental databank [Pichon-Pesme et al. (1995), J.Phys. Chem. 99, 6242-6250; Jelsch et al. (1998), Acta Cryst. D54, 1306-1318], although no direct comparison of the two methods has been performed. The theoretical databank of aspherical pseudoatoms is shown to be a significant aid in the refinement of accurate experimental X- ray data from large molecular systems, in addition to its use in the reconstruction of molecular densities and the determination of electrostatic interaction energies.

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

3.8
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