Comparison of multiple crystal structures with NMR data for engrailed homeodomain
- 220 Downloads
Two methods are currently available to solve high resolution protein structures—X-ray crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Both methods usually produce highly similar structures, but small differences between both solutions are always observed. Here the raw NMR data as well as the solved NMR structure were compared to the multiple crystal structures solved for the WT 60 residue three helix bundle engrailed homeodomain (EnHD) and single point mutants. There was excellent agreement between TALOS-predicted and crystal structure-observed dihedral angles and a good agreement for the 3 J(H N H α ) couplings for the multiple crystal structures. Around 1% of NOEs were violated for any crystal structure, but no NOE was inconsistent with all of the crystal structures. Violations usually occurred for surface residues or for residues for which multiple discreet conformations were observed between the crystal structures. Comparison of the disorder shown in the multiple crystal structures shows little correlation with dynamics under native conditions for this protein.
KeywordsBackbone dynamics Crystallography Engrailed homeodomain NMR Side-chain dynamics Structure
T.L.R. was supported by the Medical Research Council and Trinity College. Alan R. Fersht and Stefan M. V. Freund are thanked for their support and encouragement as well as their reading the manuscript and helpful comments.
- Bax A, Ikura M, Kay LE, Barbato G, Spera S (1991) Multidimensional triple resonance NMR spectroscopy of isotopically uniformly enriched proteins: a powerful new strategy for structure determination. Ciba Found Symp 161, 108–119; discussion 119–135Google Scholar
- Brunger AT (1997) X-ray crystallography and NMR reveal complementary views of structure and dynamics. Nat Struct Biol 4 (Suppl):862–865Google Scholar
- Clarke ND, Kissinger CR, Desjarlais J, Gilliland GL, Pabo CO (1994) Structural studies of the engrailed homeodomain. Protein Sci 3:1779–1787Google Scholar
- Goddard TD, Kneller DG SPARKY 3. University of California, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Lindahl E, Hess B, van der Spoel D (2001) GROMACS 3.0: a package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis. J Mol Model 7:306–317Google Scholar
- Neidhard FC, Bloch PL, Smith DF (1974) Culture medium for enterobacteria. J Bacteriol 119:736–747Google Scholar
- Neri D, Szyperski T, Otting G, Senn H, Wuthrich K (1989) Stereospecific nuclear magnetic-resonance assignments of the methyl-groups of valine and leucine in the DNA-binding domain of the 434-repressor by biosynthetically directed fractional C-13 labeling. Biochemistry 28:7510–7516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Neuhaus D, Williamson MP (2000) The nuclear overhauser effect in structural and conformational analysis Wiley-VCHGoogle Scholar
- Riley KF, Hobson MP, Bence SJ (2000) Mathematical methods for physics and engineering. A comprehensive guide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Smith JL, Hendrickson WA, Honzatko RB, Sheriff S (1984) Discrete disorder in protein crystals. Acta Crystallogr A 40:C51–C51Google Scholar
- Wuthrich K (1986) NMR of proteins and nucleic acids. WileyGoogle Scholar