Volume 104, Issue 8, Pages (April 2013)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Fabio Trovato, Edward P. O’Brien  Biophysical Journal 
Advertisements

Small Peptide Binding Stiffens the Ubiquitin-like Protein SUMO1
Maryam Sayadi, Seiichiro Tanizaki, Michael Feig  Biophysical Journal 
Ining Jou, Murugappan Muthukumar  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 106, Issue 6, Pages (March 2014)
Young Min Rhee, Vijay S. Pande  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 109, Issue 7, Pages (October 2015)
Membrane-Induced Structural Rearrangement and Identification of a Novel Membrane Anchor in Talin F2F3  Mark J. Arcario, Emad Tajkhorshid  Biophysical.
Urea-Induced Unfolding of the Immunity Protein Im9 Monitored by spFRET
Volume 112, Issue 12, Pages (June 2017)
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages (February 2014)
Molecular Dynamics Free Energy Calculations to Assess the Possibility of Water Existence in Protein Nonpolar Cavities  Masataka Oikawa, Yoshiteru Yonetani 
Backbone Dynamics of the 18
Investigating How Peptide Length and a Pathogenic Mutation Modify the Structural Ensemble of Amyloid Beta Monomer  Yu-Shan Lin, Gregory R. Bowman, Kyle A.
Carlos R. Baiz, Andrei Tokmakoff  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 111, Issue 2, Pages (July 2016)
Theoretical and Computational Investigation of Flagellin Translocation and Bacterial Flagellum Growth  David E. Tanner, Wen Ma, Zhongzhou Chen, Klaus.
Volume 108, Issue 6, Pages (March 2015)
Microsecond Unfolding Kinetics of Sheep Prion Protein Reveals an Intermediate that Correlates with Susceptibility to Classical Scrapie  Kai-Chun Chen,
Monika Sharma, Alexander V. Predeus, Nicholas Kovacs, Michael Feig 
Volume 96, Issue 2, Pages (January 2009)
Anton Arkhipov, Wouter H. Roos, Gijs J.L. Wuite, Klaus Schulten 
Influence of Protein Scaffold on Side-Chain Transfer Free Energies
PH-Dependent Conformation, Dynamics, and Aromatic Interaction of the Gating Tryptophan Residue of the Influenza M2 Proton Channel from Solid-State NMR 
Blind Test of Physics-Based Prediction of Protein Structures
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages (September 2010)
Carlos R. Baiz, Andrei Tokmakoff  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 113, Issue 5, Pages (September 2017)
Volume 20, Issue 12, Pages (December 2012)
Volume 84, Issue 6, Pages (June 2003)
Low-Resolution Structures of Proteins in Solution Retrieved from X-Ray Scattering with a Genetic Algorithm  P. Chacón, F. Morán, J.F. Díaz, E. Pantos,
SAXS-Oriented Ensemble Refinement of Flexible Biomolecules
Sukanya Sasmal, James Lincoff, Teresa Head-Gordon  Biophysical Journal 
Testing the Fit of a Quantal Model of Neurotransmission
Janin Glaenzer, Martin F. Peter, Gavin H. Thomas, Gregor Hagelueken 
FRET or No FRET: A Quantitative Comparison
Volume 113, Issue 5, Pages (September 2017)
Calcium Enhances Binding of Aβ Monomer to DMPC Lipid Bilayer
Deciphering the “Fuzzy” Interaction of FG Nucleoporins and Transport Factors Using Small-Angle Neutron Scattering  Samuel Sparks, Deniz B. Temel, Michael.
Functional Role of Ribosomal Signatures
Volume 99, Issue 6, Pages (September 2010)
Validating Solution Ensembles from Molecular Dynamics Simulation by Wide-Angle X- ray Scattering Data  Po-chia Chen, Jochen S. Hub  Biophysical Journal 
Ivan Coluzza, Daan Frenkel  Biophysical Journal 
Yuliang Zhang, Yuri L. Lyubchenko  Biophysical Journal 
Sequence and Crowding Effects in the Aggregation of a 10-Residue Fragment Derived from Islet Amyloid Polypeptide  Eva Rivera, John Straub, D. Thirumalai 
Volume 106, Issue 4, Pages (February 2014)
Cholesterol Modulates the Dimer Interface of the β2-Adrenergic Receptor via Cholesterol Occupancy Sites  Xavier Prasanna, Amitabha Chattopadhyay, Durba.
Volume 103, Issue 5, Pages (September 2012)
Structural Flexibility of CaV1. 2 and CaV2
Untangling the Influence of a Protein Knot on Folding
Mariana Levi, Kien Nguyen, Liah Dukaye, Paul Charles Whitford 
Philip J. Robinson, Teresa J.T. Pinheiro  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 110, Issue 9, Pages (May 2016)
Ining Jou, Murugappan Muthukumar  Biophysical Journal 
Mechanism of Anionic Conduction across ClC
Volume 111, Issue 11, Pages (December 2016)
Backbone Dynamics of the 18
Eric R. May, Jun Feng, Charles L. Brooks  Biophysical Journal 
Felix Ruhnow, Linda Kloβ, Stefan Diez  Biophysical Journal 
Yongli Zhang, Junyi Jiao, Aleksander A. Rebane  Biophysical Journal 
The Complex Energy Landscape of the Protein IscU
Small Peptide Binding Stiffens the Ubiquitin-like Protein SUMO1
Small-Angle X-Ray Scattering of the Cholesterol Incorporation into Human ApoA1- POPC Discoidal Particles  Søren Roi Midtgaard, Martin Cramer Pedersen,
Interactions of the Auxilin-1 PTEN-like Domain with Model Membranes Result in Nanoclustering of Phosphatidyl Inositol Phosphates  Antreas C. Kalli, Gareth.
Hydrophobic Core Formation and Dehydration in Protein Folding Studied by Generalized-Ensemble Simulations  Takao Yoda, Yuji Sugita, Yuko Okamoto  Biophysical.
Kinetic Folding Mechanism of Erythropoietin
Drazen Petrov, Xavier Daura, Bojan Zagrovic  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 96, Issue 2, Pages L7-L9 (January 2009)
Volume 105, Issue 5, Pages (September 2013)
Volume 98, Issue 3, Pages (February 2010)
Presentation transcript:

Volume 104, Issue 8, Pages 1740-1751 (April 2013) Average Conformations Determined from PRE Data Provide High-Resolution Maps of Transient Tertiary Interactions in Disordered Proteins  Jordi Silvestre-Ryan, Carlos W. Bertoncini, Robert Bryn Fenwick, Santiago Esteban-Martin, Xavier Salvatella  Biophysical Journal  Volume 104, Issue 8, Pages 1740-1751 (April 2013) DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.02.019 Copyright © 2013 Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Overview of PRE and computer-designed ensembles. (A) Dependence of PRE intensity ratio Iox/Ired on the distance between a paramagnetic center covalently attached to a residue (e.g., an MTSL label) and an amide group (1HN). Distances <∼10 Å are indistinguishable, as are those >∼25 Å. (B) Theoretical PRE intensity ratio for labels at residues 1 and 38 in an arbitrary protein conformation (blue spheres). Neighbors within ∼25 Å of the labeled residues appear as decreased intensities. The first label (attached to residue 1) yields information on interresidue interactions in the proximity of regions I–III, whereas the second label (attached to residue 38) provides long-range contact information on regions III′ and IV′. Intensity profiles for RC models are shown as dashed lines. (C) Representative structures containing designed interactions (red) are shown for ensembles of α-synuclein, ubiquitin, and Aβ42. Gray regions were not restrained and, as a consequence, behave like an RC (not shown for clarity). (D) PRE intensity ratios for several labeled residues in the Ub-unfolded-folded ensemble. PRE profiles of fitted (red) intensities to noise-corrupted (blue) intensities are shown. Intensities with no added error are shown in black. Biophysical Journal 2013 104, 1740-1751DOI: (10.1016/j.bpj.2013.02.019) Copyright © 2013 Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 High-resolution mapping of long-range tertiary interactions in complex disordered protein states as a function of ensemble size (Nrep). (A) Fit to synthetic PRE intensities (RMSDwork; standard deviation ∼0.01). (B) CV against PREs left out of the calculations (RMSDfree; standard deviation ∼0.05). The agreement with PREs derived by randomly chosen conformations from a pool of 104 structures (20 repetitions were made for each ensemble size) is also shown (inset). (C) CV against SAXS for ensembles derived from PRE-restrained (solid lines) and unrestrained (inset) MC simulations. (D) Contact maps determined by rMC simulations as a function of ensemble size. Dashed boxes highlight the tertiary contacts designed for the disordered ensembles; those for Ub-unfolded-folded correspond to the native structure of ubiquitin. For Ub-unfolded-complex, these are numbered for clarity (see Fig. 1 C). In all cases, synthetic PRE data (∼1 PRE label every 10 residues) calculated from target ensembles with a population of interresidue contacts at 5% were used. The interresidue contact maps were derived by pooling the results of 20 independent calculations (performed at each ensemble size). Additional target ensembles and maps are given in Figs. S1–S4. The residues labeled are listed in Table S2. Biophysical Journal 2013 104, 1740-1751DOI: (10.1016/j.bpj.2013.02.019) Copyright © 2013 Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Evaluation of the optimal number of PRE labeling ratio required to recover at high-resolution long-range tertiary interactions in complex disordered states of proteins. (A) Fit to synthetic PRE intensities (RMSDwork). (B) CV calculations against PREs left out of the calculations (RMSDfree). Results for an ensemble size of 1 are shown (see Figs. S8 and S9 for an ensemble size of 5). (C) Contact maps determined for ubiquitin, Aβ, and α-synuclein target ensembles using different numbers of PRE labels for calculated ensembles of size 1 (see Fig. S9 for an ensemble size of 5). Dashed boxes highlight the tertiary contacts designed for the disordered ensembles; those for Ub-unfolded-folded correspond to the native structure of ubiquitin. Biophysical Journal 2013 104, 1740-1751DOI: (10.1016/j.bpj.2013.02.019) Copyright © 2013 Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 High-resolution determination of long-range interresidue tertiary interactions in denatured apomyoglobin. (A) Structure of holomyoglobin (51). (B) Fitting of PREs (black, 14 PRE labels) and CV (red) calculations using rMC simulations for ensembles of increasing size (Nrep). (C) Contact maps as a function of ensemble size (Nrep). The interresidue contact maps were derived by pooling the results of 20 independent calculations (performed at each ensemble size). The per-residue accessible area buried upon folding is shown. Note that in general, calculated structures of disordered systems from PRE data alone (at any ensemble size) cannot be interpreted in terms of representative conformations present in solution (work on this is in progress). Fitted PRE profiles and an illustration of the chimeric headphonelike fold derived by fitting PREs to one conformer are given in Figs. S10 and S11. Biophysical Journal 2013 104, 1740-1751DOI: (10.1016/j.bpj.2013.02.019) Copyright © 2013 Biophysical Society Terms and Conditions