NMR Data Processing and Structure Calculations Using Parallel Computers

  • Wayne Boucher
  • Andrew R. C. Raine
  • Ernest D. Laue
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 225)


The determination of protein structures from NMR data involves a considerable amount of computer time, both for the calculation and interpretation of spectra. Parallel computers offer individual laboratories super-computer performance at reasonable cost.

Reconstruction of NMR spectra using the maximum entropy method involves a large number of Fourier transforms. We have ported a conventional 2-D maximum entropy program, written in FORTRAN 77, to our Meiko Computing Surface (a transputer-based parallel computer). The major modification necessary was the implementation of an efficient data communication scheme. This is particularly important for the 2-D Fourier transform, which involves each processor communicating with every other during the transpose stage. We have also implemented a stand-alone parallel 2-D Fourier transform program which minimizes communication time by overlapping this with the computation.

Obtaining the 3-D coordinates of a protein structure from 2-D spectra is commonly performed using a combination of distance-geometry and molecular dynamics calculations. We have implemented an efficient systolic loop algorithm for parallel molecular dynamics simulations on the Meiko. The program has been modified to include the distance constraints that are derived from the NMR data.


Communication Time Maximum Entropy Method Slave Processor Master Processor Slave Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Sibisi, J. Skilling, R. G. Brereton, E. D. Laue, and J. Staunton, Nature 311, 446–447 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teuklosky, W. T. Vetterling, “Numerical Recipes,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. C. Bowler, R. D. Kenway, G. S. Pawley and D. Roweth, “An Introduction to Occam 2 Programming”, Chartwell-Bratt, Lund (1987).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Fox, M. Johnson, G. Lyzenga, S. Otto, J. Salmon, and D. Walker, “Solving Problems on Concurrent Processors, Vol. I: General Techniques and Regular Problems”, Prentice-Hall, New York (1988).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. T. Brunger, M. Karplus, and G. A. Petsko Acta Cryst. Sect A 45, 50 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. M. Clore and A. M. Gronenborn Crit. Rev. Biochem. 24, 479–564 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Verlet Phys. Rev. 159, 98–103 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. R. C. Raine, D. Fincham, and W. Smith, Comput. Phys. Commit. 55, 13–30 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. P. Ryckaert, G. Ciccotti, and H. J. C. Berendsen, J. Comput. Phys. 23, 327 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. F. van Gunsteren, H. J. C. Berendsen, J. Hermans, W. G. J. Hol, and J. P. M. Postma, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80, 4315 (1983).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wayne Boucher
    • 1
  • Andrew R. C. Raine
    • 1
  • Ernest D. Laue
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiochemistryCambridge Centre for Molecular RecognitionCambridgeGreat Britain

Personalised recommendations