4.7 Article

A Dominant Factor for Structural Classification of Protein Crystals

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING
卷 55, 期 8, 页码 1673-1685

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00052

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K08458] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the increasing number of solved protein crystal structures, much information on protein shape and atom geometry has become available. It is of great interest to know the structural diversity for a single kind of protein. Our preliminary study suggested that multiple crystal structures of a single kind of protein can be classified into several groups from the viewpoint of structural similarity. In order to broadly examine this finding, cluster analysis was applied to the crystal structures of hemoglobin (Hb), myoglobin (Mb), human serum albumin (HSA), hen egg-white lysozyme (HEWL), and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease (HIV-1 PR), downloaded from the Protein Data Bank (PDB). As a result of classification by cluster analysis, 146 crystal structures of Hb were separated into five groups. The crystal structures of Mb (n = 284), HEWL (n = 336), HSA (n = 63), and HIV-1 PR (n = 488) were separated into six, five, three, and six groups, respectively. It was found that a major factor causing these structural separations is the space group of crystals and that influence on the crystal structures. Amino acid mutation is a minor factor for the separation because making a specific cluster group was observed for the five kinds of proteins. In the classification of protein source such as humans, rabbits, and mice is another significant factor. When the difference among species, the species of protein source is the primary factor causing cluster separation in structures. crystallizing agents have an no obvious point mutation Hb and Mb, the species of in amino sequence is large the classification of crystal

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