There have been several studies suggesting that protein structures solved by NMR spectroscopy and X‐ray crystallography show significant differences. To understand the origin of these differences, we assembled a database of high‐quality protein structures solved by both methods. We also find significant differences between NMR and crystal structures—in the root‐mean‐square deviations of the C α atomic positions, identities of core amino acids, backbone, and side‐chain dihedral angles, and packing fraction of core residues. In contrast to prior studies, we identify the physical basis for these differences by modeling protein cores as jammed packings of amino acid‐shaped particles. We find that we can tune the jammed packing fraction by varying the degree of thermalization used to generate the packings. For an athermal protocol, we find that the average jammed packing fraction is identical to that observed in the cores of protein structures solved by X‐ray crystallography. In contrast, highly thermalized packing‐generation protocols yield jammed packing fractions that are even higher than those observed in NMR structures. These results indicate that thermalized systems can pack more densely than athermal systems, which suggests a physical basis for the structural differences between protein structures solved by NMR and X‐ray crystallography.

Dense packing of hydrophobic residues in the cores of globular proteins determines their stability. Recently, we have shown that protein cores possess packing fraction φ ≈ 0.56, which is the same as dense, random packing of amino acid-shaped particles. In this article, we compare the structural properties of protein cores and jammed packings of amino acid-shaped particles in much greater depth by measuring their local and connected void regions. We find that the distributions of surface Voronoi cell volumes and local porosities obey similar statistics in both systems. We also measure the probability that accessible, connected void regions percolate as a function of the size of a spherical probe particle and show that both systems possess the same critical probe size. By measuring the critical exponent τ that characterizes the size distribution of connected void clusters at the onset of percolation, we show that void percolation in packings of amino acid-shaped particles and protein cores belong to the same universality class, which is different from that for void percolation in jammed sphere packings. We propose that the connected void regions of proteins are a defining feature of proteins and can be used to differentiate experimentally observed proteins from decoy structures that are generated using computational protein design software. This work emphasizes that jammed packings of amino acid-shaped particles can serve as structural and mechanical analogs of protein cores, and could therefore be useful in modeling the response of protein cores to cavityexpanding and -reducing mutations. * current address

The ability to consistently distinguish real protein structures from computationally generated model decoys is not yet a solved problem. One route to distinguish real protein structures from decoys is to delineate the important physical features that specify a real protein. For example, it has long been appreciated that the hydrophobic cores of proteins contribute significantly to their stability. We used two sources to obtain datasets of decoys to compare with real protein structures: submissions to the biennial Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction competition, in which researchers attempt to predict the structure of a protein only knowing its amino acid sequence, and also decoys generated by 3DRobot, which have user‐specified global root‐mean‐squared deviations from experimentally determined structures. Our analysis revealed that both sets of decoys possess cores that do not recapitulate the key features that define real protein cores. In particular, the model structures appear more densely packed (because of energetically unfavorable atomic overlaps), contain too few residues in the core, and have improper distributions of hydrophobic residues throughout the structure. Based on these observations, we developed a feed‐forward neural network, which incorporates key physical features of protein cores, to predict how well a computational model recapitulates the real protein structure without knowledge of the structure of the target sequence. By identifying the important features of protein structure, our method is able to rank decoy structures with similar accuracy to that obtained by state‐of‐the‐art methods that incorporate many additional features. The small number of physical features makes our model interpretable, emphasizing the importance of protein packing and hydrophobicity in protein structure prediction.

No abstract

There have been several studies suggesting that protein structures solved by NMR spectroscopy and x-ray crystallography show significant differences. To understand the origin of these differences, we assembled a database of high-quality protein structures solved by both methods. We also find significant differences between NMR and crystal structures-in the rootmean-square deviations of the C α atomic positions, identities of core amino acids, backbone and sidechain dihedral angles, and packing fraction of core residues. In contrast to prior studies, we identify the physical basis for these differences by modelling protein cores as jammed packings of amino-acid-shaped particles. We find that we can tune the jammed packing fraction by varying the degree of thermalization used to generate the packings. For an athermal protocol, we find that the average jammed packing fraction is identical to that observed in the cores of protein structures solved by x-ray crystallography. In contrast, highly thermalized packinggeneration protocols yield jammed packing fractions that are even higher than those observed in NMR structures. These results indicate that thermalized systems can pack more densely than athermal systems, which suggests a physical basis for the structural differences between protein structures solved by NMR and x-ray crystallography.It is generally acknowledged that protein structures determined by x-ray crystallography versus NMR exhibit small but significant differences. It is by no means resolved, however, whether these differences stem from differences in the experimental methods themselves, or if they reflect physical differences in proteins under the different conditions in which the measurements are made [1, 3,