Hahnbeom Park, Frank DiMaio, David Baker  Structure 

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages (February 2008)
Advertisements

Protein Structure Fitting and Refinement Guided by Cryo-EM Density
Conformational Heterogeneity in the Activation Mechanism of Bax
Using Enhanced Sampling and Structural Restraints to Refine Atomic Structures into Low-Resolution Electron Microscopy Maps  Harish Vashisth, Georgios.
Nir London, Ora Schueler-Furman  Structure 
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages (February 2014)
Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages (September 2006)
Efficient and Robust Analysis of Biomacromolecular Flexibility Using Ensembles of Network Topologies Based on Fuzzy Noncovalent Constraints  Christopher.
Gian Gaetano Tartaglia, Andrea Cavalli, Michele Vendruscolo  Structure 
Volume 22, Issue 11, Pages (November 2014)
Structural Modeling of Heteromeric Protein Complexes from Disassembly Pathways and Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry  Zoe Hall, Argyris Politis, Carol V.
CA3 Retrieves Coherent Representations from Degraded Input: Direct Evidence for CA3 Pattern Completion and Dentate Gyrus Pattern Separation  Joshua P.
Γ-TEMPy: Simultaneous Fitting of Components in 3D-EM Maps of Their Assembly Using a Genetic Algorithm  Arun Prasad Pandurangan, Daven Vasishtan, Frank.
Frank Alber, Michael F. Kim, Andrej Sali  Structure 
Cortical Mechanisms of Smooth Eye Movements Revealed by Dynamic Covariations of Neural and Behavioral Responses  David Schoppik, Katherine I. Nagel, Stephen.
Accommodating Protein Dynamics in the Modeling of Chemical Crosslinks
How Does a Voltage Sensor Interact with a Lipid Bilayer
Volume 15, Issue 9, Pages (September 2007)
Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages (May 2011)
Clare-Louise Towse, Steven J. Rysavy, Ivan M. Vulovic, Valerie Daggett 
Complementarity of Structure Ensembles in Protein-Protein Binding
A Highly Strained Nuclear Conformation of the Exportin Cse1p Revealed by Molecular Dynamics Simulations  Ulrich Zachariae, Helmut Grubmüller  Structure 
Veronica Salmaso, Mattia Sturlese, Alberto Cuzzolin, Stefano Moro 
Increased Reliability of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Protein Structures by Consensus Structure Bundles  Lena Buchner, Peter Güntert  Structure  Volume.
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 21, Issue 10, Pages (October 2013)
Joe G. Greener, Ioannis Filippis, Michael J.E. Sternberg  Structure 
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages (May 2008)
Volume 17, Issue 12, Pages (December 2009)
Volume 26, Issue 7, Pages e2 (July 2018)
The Signaling Pathway of Rhodopsin
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages (February 2012)
XLF Regulates Filament Architecture of the XRCC4·Ligase IV Complex
Supertertiary Structure of the MAGUK Core from PSD-95
Structural Dynamics of Light-Driven Proton Pumps
Daniel Hoersch, Tanja Kortemme  Structure 
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages (June 2012)
Volume 96, Issue 7, Pages (April 2009)
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages (March 2012)
Computational Modeling Reveals that Signaling Lipids Modulate the Orientation of K- Ras4A at the Membrane Reflecting Protein Topology  Zhen-Lu Li, Matthias.
Volume 17, Issue 7, Pages (July 2009)
Deciphering the “Fuzzy” Interaction of FG Nucleoporins and Transport Factors Using Small-Angle Neutron Scattering  Samuel Sparks, Deniz B. Temel, Michael.
Fan Zheng, Jian Zhang, Gevorg Grigoryan  Structure 
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages (June 2013)
Combining Efficient Conformational Sampling with a Deformable Elastic Network Model Facilitates Structure Refinement at Low Resolution  Gunnar F. Schröder,
Nir London, Ora Schueler-Furman  Structure 
Probing the “Dark Matter” of Protein Fold Space
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages (February 2008)
Alemayehu A. Gorfe, Barry J. Grant, J. Andrew McCammon  Structure 
The Dynamic Basis for Signal Propagation in Human Pin1-WW
Yuguang Mu, Lars Nordenskiöld, James P. Tam  Biophysical Journal 
Recognition of the Regulatory Nascent Chain TnaC by the Ribosome
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages (March 2008)
Atomic-Level Protein Structure Refinement Using Fragment-Guided Molecular Dynamics Conformation Sampling  Jian Zhang, Yu Liang, Yang Zhang  Structure 
Assessing Exhaustiveness of Stochastic Sampling for Integrative Modeling of Macromolecular Structures  Shruthi Viswanath, Ilan E. Chemmama, Peter Cimermancic,
Yan Xia, Axel W. Fischer, Pedro Teixeira, Brian Weiner, Jens Meiler 
Logan S. Ahlstrom, Osamu Miyashita  Biophysical Journal 
Open-State Models of a Potassium Channel
Γ-TEMPy: Simultaneous Fitting of Components in 3D-EM Maps of Their Assembly Using a Genetic Algorithm  Arun Prasad Pandurangan, Daven Vasishtan, Frank.
Feng Ding, Douglas Tsao, Huifen Nie, Nikolay V. Dokholyan  Structure 
Vilas Menon, Brinda K. Vallat, Joseph M. Dybas, Andras Fiser  Structure 
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages (September 2005)
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)
Gydo C.P. van Zundert, Adrien S.J. Melquiond, Alexandre M.J.J. Bonvin 
Validation of Cryo-EM Structure of IP3R1 Channel
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)
by Nicola Salvi, Anton Abyzov, and Martin Blackledge
High-Resolution Comparative Modeling with RosettaCM
An Efficient Null Model for Conformational Fluctuations in Proteins
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (June 2007)
Presentation transcript:

The Origin of Consistent Protein Structure Refinement from Structural Averaging  Hahnbeom Park, Frank DiMaio, David Baker  Structure  Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 1123-1128 (June 2015) DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2015.03.022 Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Structure 2015 23, 1123-1128DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2015.03.022) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Consistent Refinement Using Implicit Solvent Simulations Rosetta implicit solvent simulations were carried out starting from CASP8-10 refinement targets (see the Experimental Procedures section for details). (A) Comparison of starting (X axis) and refined models (Y axis) by four measures: GDT-HA (Kopp et al., 2007), Cα LDDT (Mariani et al., 2013), RMSD (Å), and radius of gyration (Å). GDT-HA measures the fraction of residues to within 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 Å of the native position after structural superimposition. Cα LDDT measures the similarity of the Cα-Cα pairwise distance map within 5-Å cutoff without structural superimposition. Overall, the fraction of targets improved by refinement is 77.5%, 72.5%, 77.5% with average improvements of 1.56%, 1.13%, and 0.13Å in GDT-HA, Cα LDDT, and RMSD, respectively. (B) Correlation between the fraction of structures improved in the sampled trajectory (by GDT-HA, X axis) and GDT-HA change in the final model brought by refinement (Y axis). Each dot represents a single target among 40 test cases. Averaging results in improvements over the starting model when more than 15% of the structures (dotted line) sampled in the trajectory are closer to the native structure than the starting model. Structure 2015 23, 1123-1128DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2015.03.022) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Analysis of the Effect of Averaging at the Individual Residue Level (A) The magnitude of the fluctuations in the coordinates of a residue during the trajectories increases with increasing distance of the starting coordinates from the native structure. The first and third quartiles are shown as error bars. From (B) to (D), residue model quality changes are plotted (Y axis) as a function of the fluctuations of the residue during the simulation (X axis, RMSF in Å) for the 40 targets in the study. (B) The mean value of the per residue change in RMSD (ΔRMSD) for each member of the ensemble. ΔRMSD values are computed for each residue in each member of the ensemble and the resulting ΔRMSD values are then averaged. (C) The per residue ΔRMSD of the ensemble-averaged structure. Members of the ensemble are first structurally averaged and then the per residue ΔRMSD is computed for this averaged structure. (D) The difference between the pre (B) and post (C) structural averaging per residue ΔRMSDs. The Y axis indicates the contribution of structural averaging: negative values represent improvements upon averaging. Residues with low fluctuation (<0.2 Å), high fluctuation (>1.0 Å), or with large improvements (<−0.4 Å) in the averaged structures are indicated with black, red, and blue circles, respectively. Residue-level model quality is measured by residue RMSD on a nine-residue window with the target residue at the center. For comparison, the same analyses on unrestrained simulations are provided in Figure S1. Structure 2015 23, 1123-1128DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2015.03.022) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Dependence of Per Residue Changes During Refinement on Starting RMSD to the Native Structure (A) Dependence of per residue ΔRMSD (see Figure 2 legend) on starting RMSD to the native structure. The first and third quartiles are shown as error bars. (B) The fraction of residues improved as a function of the starting RMSD to the native structure. (C and D) The distribution of per residue improvements (C) before and (D) after structural averaging are shown as histograms. Black and white columns correspond to restrained and unrestrained simulations, respectively. Structure 2015 23, 1123-1128DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2015.03.022) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions