2020
DOI: 10.1002/prot.25884
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analyses of protein cores reveal fundamental differences between solution and crystal structures

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 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 c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
29
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In X-ray crystallographic structures, protein residues may be, for example, more densely packed than they are in a solution [32]. In the X-ray crystal structure of P450-TT (see Methods), the distance between Gln66 and Arg88 is~5.91 Å and these residues' surface figures (Figures 5 and 6) shows that the substrate channel is tightly closed.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In X-ray crystallographic structures, protein residues may be, for example, more densely packed than they are in a solution [32]. In the X-ray crystal structure of P450-TT (see Methods), the distance between Gln66 and Arg88 is~5.91 Å and these residues' surface figures (Figures 5 and 6) shows that the substrate channel is tightly closed.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to the packing-generation protocol described in Sec. II, we employ the protocol [58] with thermal fluctuations described in Appendix C. As in 2D, we find that φ J increases with T , as shown in Fig. 13.…”
Section: Appendix Dmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…We repeat this thermalization, compression, and energy min- imization process until reaching jamming onset with a pressure that satisfies 10 −7 < P < 2 × 10 −7 when the system is in force balance. (A similar protocol has been implemented to generate jammed packings of 3D rigid bumpy particles [58].) We studied a range of temperatures from T = 10 −6 to 10 −2 .…”
Section: Appendix Cmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are often used to analyze thermal fluctuations in folded proteins. To what extent do the protein conformations sampled in such MD simulations recapitulate the packing properties of experimentally observed protein structures 66 ? The model developed here can be used in concert with MD simulations to filter out unphysical conformations, which will have low values of GDT, without using knowledge of the experimentally observed protein structure.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To estimate an average error, the predicted scores were normalized so that they fall within 0 to 1. The AUC values were averaged over GDT cutoffs from 40 66 ? The model developed here can be used in concert with MD simulations to filter out unphysical conformations, which will have low values of GDT, without using knowledge of the experimentally observed protein structure.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%