Binchen Mao, Rongjin Guan, Gaetano T. Montelione  Structure 

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Stony Brook Integrative Structural Biology Organization
Advertisements

Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages (February 2008)
Volume 19, Issue 8, Pages (August 2011)
Atsushi Matsumoto, Hisashi Ishida  Structure 
Liam M. Longo, Ozan S. Kumru, C. Russell Middaugh, Michael Blaber 
Nir London, Ora Schueler-Furman  Structure 
Hahnbeom Park, Frank DiMaio, David Baker  Structure 
Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages (August 2016)
Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages (September 2006)
Volume 16, Issue 9, Pages (September 2008)
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages (May 2008)
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (June 2007)
Amyloid Structures from Alzheimer’s Disease Patients
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages (January 2013)
Parsimony in Protein Conformational Change
Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages (November 2010)
AnchorDock: Blind and Flexible Anchor-Driven Peptide Docking
Volume 19, Issue 7, Pages (July 2011)
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages (May 2014)
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages (March 2017)
Axel T Brünger, Paul D Adams, Luke M Rice  Structure 
Frank Alber, Michael F. Kim, Andrej Sali  Structure 
A Model for the Solution Structure of the Rod Arrestin Tetramer
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages (January 2007)
Volume 15, Issue 9, Pages (September 2007)
Solution and Crystal Structures of a Sugar Binding Site Mutant of Cyanovirin-N: No Evidence of Domain Swapping  Elena Matei, William Furey, Angela M.
Fernando Corrêa, Jason Key, Brian Kuhlman, Kevin H. Gardner  Structure 
Genome Pool Strategy for Structural Coverage of Protein Families
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages (May 2008)
Multiple Conformations of F-actin
Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages (September 2006)
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages (February 2012)
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,
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages (April 2009)
GPCR-I-TASSER: A Hybrid Approach to G Protein-Coupled Receptor Structure Modeling and the Application to the Human Genome  Jian Zhang, Jianyi Yang, Richard.
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages (March 2012)
Ligand Binding to the Voltage-Gated Kv1
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 25, Issue 12, Pages e2 (December 2017)
Fan Zheng, Jian Zhang, Gevorg Grigoryan  Structure 
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages (February 2012)
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages (June 2013)
Zheng Liu, Fei Guo, Feng Wang, Tian-Cheng Li, Wen Jiang  Structure 
Conservation of Protein Structure over Four Billion Years
Nir London, Ora Schueler-Furman  Structure 
Recognizing Protein Substructure Similarity Using Segmental Threading
Volume 16, Issue 9, Pages (September 2008)
Volume 19, Issue 8, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages (July 2004)
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages (February 2011)
Amyloid Structures from Alzheimer’s Disease Patients
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages (June 2012)
Local Error Estimates Dramatically Improve the Utility of Homology Models for Solving Crystal Structures by Molecular Replacement  Gábor Bunkóczi, Björn.
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages (June 2008)
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages (July 2005)
A Critical Comparative Assessment of Predictions of Protein-Binding Sites for Biologically Relevant Organic Compounds  Ke Chen, Marcin J. Mizianty, Jianzhao.
Atomic-Level Protein Structure Refinement Using Fragment-Guided Molecular Dynamics Conformation Sampling  Jian Zhang, Yu Liang, Yang Zhang  Structure 
Yan Xia, Axel W. Fischer, Pedro Teixeira, Brian Weiner, Jens Meiler 
Volume 19, Issue 7, Pages (July 2011)
Vilas Menon, Brinda K. Vallat, Joseph M. Dybas, Andras Fiser  Structure 
NMR Polypeptide Backbone Conformation of the E
Gydo C.P. van Zundert, Adrien S.J. Melquiond, Alexandre M.J.J. Bonvin 
A Model for the Solution Structure of the Rod Arrestin Tetramer
Hydrophobic Core Formation and Dehydration in Protein Folding Studied by Generalized-Ensemble Simulations  Takao Yoda, Yuji Sugita, Yuko Okamoto  Biophysical.
Christian X. Weichenberger, Manfred J. Sippl  Structure 
Chengfei Yan, Xianjin Xu, Xiaoqin Zou  Structure 
High-Resolution Comparative Modeling with RosettaCM
Miklos Guttman, Patrick Weinkam, Andrej Sali, Kelly K. Lee  Structure 
An Efficient Null Model for Conformational Fluctuations in Proteins
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (June 2007)
Presentation transcript:

Improved Technologies Now Routinely Provide Protein NMR Structures Useful for Molecular Replacement  Binchen Mao, Rongjin Guan, Gaetano T. Montelione  Structure  Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 757-766 (June 2011) DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2011.04.005 Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Knowledge-Based Structure Quality Scores for NESG NMR Structures Have Consistently Improved as NMR Methods Have Matured over the Past Several Years (A) and (B) show box plots of the distribution of Z scores (y axis) of PROCHECK “all-dihedral-angle” G factor and MolProbity clash scores, respectively, for all NMR structures solved by the NESG consortium in each PSI fiscal year (x axis). The red dashed lines represent the average Z scores. One PSI fiscal year is a 12 month time period generally spanning July 1st through June 30th of the following year. The PROCHECK all-dihedral-angle G factor is determined by the stereochemical quality of both backbone and side-chain dihedral angles of proteins, and MolProbity clash score is a measure to reflect the number of high-energy contacts in a structure calculated by the program probe. PSVS Z scores are calculated based on a calibrated data set of 252 high-quality X-ray crystal structures from the PDB with resolution ≤1.80 Å, R factor ≤0.25, and Rfree ≤0.28 (Bhattacharya et al., 2007). Structure 2011 19, 757-766DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2011.04.005) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Using the fc Method, Phaser Phasing Scores Obtained Using NMR Structure Ensembles as Templates Are Generally Sufficient to Provide Good MR Solutions (A) LLG-TFZ scatter plot. LLG and TFZs are calculated by Phaser, and log10(LLG) and TFZs are plotted on y axis and x axis, respectively. The red vertical-dashed line delimits (TFZ = 5) the typical cutoff of an invalid Phaser solution, whereas the green vertical-dashed line (TFZ = 8) delimits the typical cutoff of a definite Phaser solution, according to the Phaser manual. For each individual target only the model with the highest TFZ solution is plotted. Colors are coded by different model preparation methods. SR478_R and ZR18_R denote the two models following Rosetta refinement. (B) Comparisons of TFZs from different MR models prepared by the eight model preparation methods. Models are color coded by their respective preparation method. TFZs calculated by Phaser are plotted on y axis, whereas each NESG target is plotted on x axis in alphabetical order. The red horizontal-dashed line (at TFZ = 5) delimits the typical cutoff of an invalid Phaser solution, whereas the green horizontal-dashed line (at TFZ = 8) delimits the typical cutoff of a definite Phaser solution, according to the Phaser manual. See also Tables S2 and S5. Structure 2011 19, 757-766DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2011.04.005) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 NMR and X-ray Structures Are About Equally Useful as Templates for Obtaining MR Solutions for Homologous Protein Structures (A) Plot of TFZs of Phaser solutions versus sequence identity (Seq_ID) between search model and target X-ray crystal structure. Solutions derived from X-ray crystal structure search models are colored red, and solutions derived from “fc”-trimmed NMR structure ensemble search models are colored blue. (B) Plot of free R factor values of final ARP/wARP models versus sequence identity between search models and target X-ray structures. Solutions derived from X-ray crystal structure search models are colored red, and solutions derived from “fc”-trimmed NMR structure ensemble search models are colored blue. See also Tables S6 and S7. Structure 2011 19, 757-766DOI: (10.1016/j.str.2011.04.005) Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions