Validation of protein backbone structures calculated from NMR angular restraints using Rosetta.
Angular restraints
Chemical shift anisotropy
Dipolar couplings
Membrane proteins
Oriented-sample NMR
Rosetta
Structure determination
Journal
Journal of biomolecular NMR
ISSN: 1573-5001
Titre abrégé: J Biomol NMR
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9110829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
24
02
2019
accepted:
02
05
2019
pubmed:
12
5
2019
medline:
4
12
2019
entrez:
12
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Multidimensional solid-state NMR spectra of oriented membrane proteins can be used to infer the backbone torsion angles and hence the overall protein fold by measuring dipolar couplings and chemical shift anisotropies, which depend on the orientation of each peptide plane with respect to the external magnetic field. However, multiple peptide plane orientations can be consistent with a given set of angular restraints. This ambiguity is further exacerbated by experimental uncertainty in obtaining and interpreting such restraints. The previously developed algorithms for structure calculations using angular restraints typically involve a sequential walkthrough along the backbone to find the torsion angles between the consecutive peptide plane orientations that are consistent with the experimental data. This method is sensitive to experimental uncertainty in interpreting the peak positions of as low as ± 10 Hz, often yielding high structural RMSDs for the calculated structures. Here we present a significantly improved version of the algorithm which includes the fitting of several peptide planes at once in order to prevent propagation of error along the backbone. In addition, a protocol has been devised for filtering the structural solutions using Rosetta scoring functions in order to find the structures that both fit the spectrum and satisfy bioinformatics restraints. The robustness of the new algorithm has been tested using synthetic angular restraints generated from the known structures for two proteins: a soluble protein 2gb1 (56 residues), chosen for its diverse secondary structure elements, i.e. an alpha-helix and two beta-sheets, and a membrane protein 4a2n, from which the first two transmembrane helices (having a total of 64 residues) have been used. Extensive simulations have been performed by varying the number of fitted planes, experimental error, and the number of NMR dimensions. It has been found that simultaneously fitting two peptide planes always shifted the distribution of the calculated structures toward lower structural RMSD values as compared to fitting a single torsion-angle pair. For each protein, irrespective of the simulation parameters, Rosetta was able to distinguish the most plausible structures, often having structural RMSDs lower than 2 Å with respect to the original structure. This study establishes a framework for de-novo protein structure prediction using a combination of solid-state NMR angular restraints and bioinformatics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31076969
doi: 10.1007/s10858-019-00251-7
pii: 10.1007/s10858-019-00251-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Membrane Proteins
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
229-244Subventions
Organisme : National Science Foundation
ID : 1508400
Organisme : Army Research Office
ID : W911NF1810363
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Proteins. 2015 Sep;83(9):1687-92
pubmed: 26148341
Bioinformatics. 2010 Mar 1;26(5):689-91
pubmed: 20061306
Methods Enzymol. 2004;383:66-93
pubmed: 15063647
Biochemistry. 2006 Nov 21;45(46):13827-34
pubmed: 17105201
Protein Sci. 2001 Nov;10(11):2241-50
pubmed: 11604531
Science. 2010 Oct 22;330(6003):509-12
pubmed: 20966252
J Magn Reson. 2014 Jun;243:54-64
pubmed: 24747742
J Magn Reson. 2011 Sep;212(1):64-73
pubmed: 21741286
J Magn Reson. 2007 Mar;185(1):59-70
pubmed: 17074522
Methods Enzymol. 2013;523:109-43
pubmed: 23422428
Protein Sci. 2005 Apr;14(4):1064-70
pubmed: 15741342
J Magn Reson. 2003 Aug;163(2):300-9
pubmed: 12914845
J Mol Biol. 2002 May 24;319(1):209-27
pubmed: 12051947
J Magn Reson. 2004 Apr;167(2):228-41
pubmed: 15040978
J Magn Reson. 2007 May;186(1):51-64
pubmed: 17293139
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Sep 01;11(9):e1004398
pubmed: 26325167
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jan 29;110(5):1692-5
pubmed: 23319623
J Mol Biol. 1993 Oct 5;233(3):447-63
pubmed: 8411155
J Biomol NMR. 1999 Mar;13(3):289-302
pubmed: 10212987
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 May 31;108(22):9101-6
pubmed: 21576492
J Biomol NMR. 2009 Aug;44(4):213-23
pubmed: 19548092
J Biomol NMR. 2017 Jan;67(1):35-49
pubmed: 28035651
J Biomol NMR. 2008 Jun;41(2):61-76
pubmed: 18478335
J Chem Theory Comput. 2015 Feb 10;11(2):609-22
pubmed: 25866491
Science. 1991 Aug 9;253(5020):657-61
pubmed: 1871600
J Magn Reson. 2008 Apr;191(2):322-34
pubmed: 18258464
Proteins. 2006 Mar 1;62(4):1010-25
pubmed: 16372357
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 23;106(25):10165-70
pubmed: 19509339
Protein Sci. 2003 Mar;12(3):403-11
pubmed: 12592011
Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc. 2010 Aug;57(2):181-228
pubmed: 20633363
Sci Rep. 2013;3:2538
pubmed: 23985776
Proteins. 2015 Jan;83(1):1-24
pubmed: 25355688
J Chem Phys. 2006 Jul 21;125(3):34507
pubmed: 16863362
Mol Cell. 2011 Dec 23;44(6):997-1004
pubmed: 22195972
Nat Struct Biol. 1999 Apr;6(4):374-9
pubmed: 10201407
Bioinformatics. 2003 Jan 22;19(2):315-6
pubmed: 12538267
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Sep 12;97(19):10383-8
pubmed: 10984534
J Magn Reson. 2003 Jan;160(1):65-73
pubmed: 12565051
Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2013 Sep 23;52(39):10321-4
pubmed: 23939862
Science. 2003 Nov 21;302(5649):1364-8
pubmed: 14631033