



structural communications
A conserved fold for fimbrial components revealed by the Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron at 2.2 Å resolution
of a putative fimbrial assembly protein (BT1062) fromaJoint Center for Structural Genomics, https://www.jcsg.org , USA,bStanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory,
Menlo Park, CA, USA,cProtein Sciences Department, Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation,
San Diego, CA, USA,dCenter for Research in Biological Systems, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, CA, USA,eProgram on Bioinformatics and Systems Biology, Burnham Institute for Medical Research,
La Jolla, CA, USA,fUniversity of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA,gDepartment of Molecular Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA,
and hPhoton Science, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA, USA
*Correspondence e-mail: [email protected]
BT1062 from Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron is a homolog of Mfa2 (PGN0288 or PG0179), which is a component of the minor fimbriae in Porphyromonas gingivalis. The of BT1062 revealed a conserved fold that is widely adopted by fimbrial components.
3D view: 3gf8
PDB reference: BT1062, 3gf8
1. Introduction
The Gram-negative anaerobic bacterium Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron is a predominant member of the mammalian intestinal microbiota. It is important for
the study of the symbiotic relationship between bacteria and humans, as well as for
its abilities to digest complex plant and host-derived (Xu et al., 2003). It is also an opportunistic pathogen and can cause serious infections. Extracellular
proteins are expected to be crucial for such functions in B. thetaiotaomicron and other gut microbes. Therefore, we initiated a project to characterize the structures
of proteins that are specific to the gut environment from the bacterial secretome
of human gut microbiota, in order to gain further insights into the molecular mechanisms
of bacteria–host symbiosis as well as of bacterial pathogenesis.
Here, we report the 2.2 Å B. thetaiotaomicron, which was determined using the high-throughput pipeline of the Joint Center for
Structural Genomics (JCSG; Lesley et al., 2002) as part of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences Protein Structure
Initiative (PSI; https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Initiatives/PSI/ ). The BT1062 gene of B. thetaiotaomicron encodes a predicted lipoprotein with a molecular weight of 36 535 Da (residues 1–317)
and a calculated of 4.8.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Protein production and crystallization
Clones were generated using the Polymerase Incomplete Primer Extension (PIPE) cloning
method (Klock et al., 2008). The gene encoding BT1062 (Swiss-Prot Q8A8V5) was amplified by (PCR) from B. thetaiotaomicron VPI-5482 genomic DNA using PfuTurbo DNA polymerase (Stratagene) and I-PIPE (Insert) primers (forward primer 5′-ctgtacttccagggcGCTTCATGCGACAGCTTTAATGAAGACC-3′,
reverse primer 5′-aattaagtcgcgttaTTGATTCTCTTCCTGAATGCGATGCACC-3′; target sequence
in upper case) that included sequences for the predicted 5′ and 3′ ends. The expression
vector pSpeedET, which encodes an amino-terminal tobacco etch virus (TEV) protease-cleavable
expression and purification tag (MGSDKIHHHHHHENLYFQ/G), was PCR-amplified with V-PIPE
(Vector) primers (forward primer 5′-taacgcgacttaattaactcgtttaaacggtctccagc-3′, reverse
primer 5′-gccctggaagtacaggttttcgtgatgatgatgatgatg-3′). V-PIPE and I-PIPE PCR products
were mixed to anneal the amplified DNA fragments together. Escherichia coli GeneHogs (Invitrogen) competent cells were transformed with the I-PIPE/V-PIPE mixture
and dispensed onto selective LB–agar plates. The cloning junctions were confirmed
by DNA sequencing. Using the PIPE method, the gene segment encoding residues Met1–Glu22
was deleted as it was predicted to code for a signal peptide at the start of the protein.
Expression was performed in a selenomethionine-containing medium at 310 K with suppression
of normal methionine synthesis. At the end of lysozyme was added to the culture to a final concentration of 250 µg ml−1 and the cells were harvested and frozen. After one freeze–thaw cycle, the cells were
sonicated in lysis buffer [50 mM HEPES pH 8.0, 50 mM NaCl, 10 mM imidazole, 1 mM tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine–HCl (TCEP)] and the lysate was clarified by centrifugation
at 32 500g for 30 min. The soluble fraction was passed over nickel-chelating resin (GE Healthcare)
pre-equilibrated with lysis buffer, the resin was washed with wash buffer [50 mM HEPES pH 8.0, 300 mM NaCl, 40 mM imidazole, 10%(v/v) glycerol, 1 mM TCEP] and the protein was eluted with elution buffer [20 mM HEPES pH 8.0, 300 mM imidazole, 10%(v/v) glycerol, 1 mM TCEP]. The was buffer-exchanged with TEV buffer (20 mM HEPES pH 8.0, 200 mM NaCl, 40 mM imidazole, 1 mM TCEP) using a PD-10 column (GE Healthcare) and incubated with 1 mg TEV protease per
15 mg of eluted protein. The protease-treated was run over nickel-chelating resin (GE Healthcare) pre-equilibrated with HEPES crystallization
buffer (20 mM HEPES pH 8.0, 200 mM NaCl, 40 mM imidazole, 1 mM TCEP) and the resin was washed with the same buffer. The flowthrough and wash fractions
were combined and concentrated to 19.1 mg ml−1 by centrifugal ultrafiltration (Millipore) for crystallization trials. BT1062 was
crystallized by mixing 100 nl protein solution with 100 nl crystallization solution
above a 50 µl reservoir volume using the nanodroplet vapor-diffusion method (Santarsiero
et al., 2002
) with standard JCSG crystallization protocols (Lesley et al., 2002
). The crystallization reagent consisted of 1.4 M sodium citrate, 0.1 M HEPES pH 7.5. A cube-shaped crystal of approximate dimensions 40 × 40 × 30 µm was
harvested after 23 d at 277 K for data collection. Ethylene glycol was added to the
crystal as a cryoprotectant to a final concentration of 10%(v/v). Initial screening for diffraction was carried out using the Stanford Automated
Mounting (SAM) system (Cohen et al., 2002
) and an X-ray microsource at Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL, Menlo
Park, California, USA).
The oligomeric state of BT1062 in solution was determined using a 1 × 30 cm Superdex 200 column (GE Healthcare) coupled with miniDAWN static light-scattering (SEC/SLS) and Optilab differential refractive-index detectors (Wyatt Technology). The mobile phase consisted of 20 mM Tris–HCl pH 8.0, 150 mM NaCl and 0.02%(w/v) sodium azide. The molecular weight was calculated using ASTRA v.5.1.5 software (Wyatt Technology).
2.2. Data collection, structure solution and refinement
Multi-wavelength anomalous diffraction (MAD) data were collected on beamline 9-2 at
the SSRL at wavelengths corresponding to the inflection (λ1), high-energy remote (λ2) and peak (λ3) of a selenium MAD experiment. The data sets were collected at 100 K using an MAR
CCD 325 detector. The MAD data were integrated and reduced using MOSFLM and scaled with SCALA. Selenium sites were located using SHELXD (Sheldrick, 2008) and refined using autoSHARP (mean figure of merit of 0.46 with ten selenium sites; Bricogne et al., 2003
). Phase and automatic model building were performed with RESOLVE (Terwilliger, 2003
). Model completion and were performed with Coot (Emsley & Cowtan, 2004
) and REFMAC (Winn et al., 2003
). The included experimental phase restraints in the form of Hendrickson–Lattman coefficients
and TLS with one TLS group per chain. CCP4 programs were used for data conversion and other calculations (Collaborative Computational
Project, Number 4, 1994
). Data-processing and are summarized in Table 1
.
![]() ![]() ‡Rmeas is the redundancy-independent Rmerge (Diederichs & Karplus, 1997 ![]() ![]() §Rcryst = ![]() ![]() ¶Rfree is the same as Rcryst but for 5% of the total reflections chosen at random and omitted from ††This value represents the total B that includes TLS and residual B components. ‡‡Estimated overall coordinate error (Collaborative Computational Project, Number 4, 1994 ![]() ![]() |
2.3. Validation, deposition and figures
The quality of the AutoDepInputTool (Yang et al., 2004), MolProbity (Lovell et al., 2003
) and WHAT IF v.5.0 (Vriend, 1990
), the agreement between the atomic model and the data using SFCHECK v.4.0 (Collaborative Computational Project, Number 4, 1994
) and RESOLVE (Terwilliger, 2003
), the protein sequence using ClustalW (Thompson et al., 1994
), the atomic occupancies using MOLEMAN2 (Kleywegt, 2000
) and the consistency of NCS pairs. It also evaluates the differences in Rcryst/Rfree, expected Rfree/Rcryst and maximum/minimum B values by parsing the log file and PDB header. All molecular graphics were prepared with PyMOL (DeLano Scientific). Sequence alignments were rendered using TEXshade (Beitz, 2000
).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Sequence analysis and functional assignment
BT1062 is a member of a functionally uncharacterized protein family [Pfam PF08842
or DUF1812 (domain of unknown function family 1812)] consisting of ∼80 Bacteroidetes proteins of around 300–400 residues. Homologous proteins are abundant in Bacteroidetes genomes. For example, at least four paralogs are found in B. thetaiotaomicron VPI-5482 (BT1062, BT2657, BT4225 and BT4226; sequence identity of >20%), three in
Porphyromonas gingivalis (PGN0185, PGN0288 and PGN0289) and eight in B. fragilis NCTC 9343 (BF1578, BF1851, BF1976, BF2185, BF2264, BF2871, BF3328 and BF4229). The
genomic context is conserved for BT1062 homologs, which involves a cluster of four associated genes: BT1066, BT1065, BT1063 and BT1062 (Fig. 1). BT1062 and BF2185 of B. fragilis have almost identical genomic environments. A cluster of genes BT1062–BT1068, which are likely to be an operon, all contain signal and are predicted to encode (with the exception of BT1064). This putative operon may be under the control of
BT1069, which encodes a putative transcription regulator. Downstream of the operon is a
putative histidine kinase (BT1058).
![]() |
Figure 1 Gene context for representative BT1062 homologs in B. thetaiotaomicron (Bth), B. fragilis NCTC 9343 (Bfs), B. vulgatus ATCC 8482 (Bvu), Parabacteroides distasonis ATCC 8503 (Bdi) and Porphyromonas gingivalis strain ATCC 33277 (Pgn). The lengths of the genes are not drawn to scale. Each homologous set of sequences is represented by one color. |
BT1062 is homologous to Mfa2 (PGN0288, also previously known as PG0179) of P. gingivalis strain ATCC 33277 (19% sequence identity; Fig. 2a). Mfa2 co-transcribes with the minor fimbrial antigen (mfa1) and is involved in the assembly of Mfa1 fimbriae (Chung et al., 2000
; Hasegawa et al., 2009
). BT1063 is a remote homolog of Mfa1 (PGN0287; 15% identity; Fig. 1
), which is the structural subunit of P. gingivalis minor fimbriae (Yoshimura et al., 2009
). P. gingivalis also contains homologous proteins to BT1064 and BT1066 (PGN0128 and PGN0179; PGN0129
and PGN0178). BT1065 matches the N-terminal domain of PGN0128, indicating that PGN0128
is a fusion product of BT1065-like and BT1064-like proteins. Therefore, the BT1062–BT1068 genes are most likely to encode a fimbriae (or pili) system similar to that of the
minor fimbriae of P. gingivalis, with BT1062 being equivalent to mfa2. P. gingivalis has at least two types of fimbriae: major (long) fimbriae with FimA as the main structural
subunit (Yoshimura et al., 1984
) and minor (short) Mfa1 fimbriae (Hamada et al., 1996
; Park et al., 2005
). Fimbriae were also observed in strains of B. thetaiotaomicron and B. fragilis (Shinjo & Kiyoyama, 1984
); however, the fimbriae-assembly machinery are currently uncharacterized at the molecular
level. The similarity of the potential fimbriae proteins to those of P. gingivalis could suggest a similar fimbriae-assembly system in B. thetaiotaomicron and B. fragilis. The fimbriae in gut bacteria, such as B. thetaiotaomicron and B. fragilis, may be required for adhesion to host tissues (Pumbwe et al., 2006
), formation of biofilms with other bacteria in the gut, or play other as yet unknown
functional roles.
![]() |
Figure 2 Crystal structure of BT1062. (a) Sequence alignment of BT1062, BF2185 and PGN0288 (Mfa2). The secondary-structural elements, residue numbering of BT1062 and consensus are shown at the top. The seven conserved β-strands (A–G) of the two transthyretin-like domains are highlighted. The potential membrane-attachment site and Mfa1-interaction site are labeled by stars at the bottom. (b) Stereo ribbon diagram of BT1062 monomer color coded from the N-terminus (blue) to the C-terminus (red). |
3.2. Overall structure
The selenomethionine derivative of BT1062 (residues 23–317) with an N-terminal His
tag was expressed in E. coli and purified by metal-affinity The predicted N-terminal signal peptide (residues 1–22) was not included in the construct.
The of BT1062 was determined in the tetragonal P41212 at 2.2 Å resolution using the MAD method. The final BT1062 model includes a monomer
(residues 34–317; Fig. 2b), one ethylene glycol and 174 water molecules in the The Matthews coefficient (VM; Matthews, 1968
) for BT1062 is 3.25 Å3 Da−1 and the estimated solvent content is 62%. The Ramachandran plot produced by MolProbity shows that 96.8 and 100% of the residues are in the favored and allowed regions,
respectively. BT1062 is composed of 21 β-strands (β1–β21), three α-helices (α1–α3) and five 310-helices. The total β-sheet, α-helical and 310-helical contents are 43.0, 6 and 5.3%, respectively. BT1062 is likely to exist as
a monomer in solution, which is consistent with crystal-packing analysis and analytical
size-exclusion chromatography.
3.3. Structural comparisons
The structure of BT1062 consists of a tandem repeat of two domains: I (34–170) and
II (171–317). Using individual domains, the DALI structural similarity search server (Holm & Sander, 1995) indicated that both domains have transthyretin-like (previously known as prealbumin-like)
folds with seven core β-strands (A–G) arranged in two sheets (DAG and CBEF; Fig. 2
). The top hit for domain I is the C-terminal transthyretin subdomain of the carboxypeptidase
D domain II (Aloy et al., 2001
; PDB code 1h8l ; Z = 7.0, r.m.s.d. of 2.1 Å for 78 aligned Cα atoms, 13% sequence identity). The best match for domain II is human transthyretin
(Karlsson & Sauer-Eriksson, 2007
; PDB code 2qel ; Z = 6.1, r.m.s.d. of 3.6 Å for 96 aligned Cα atoms, 7% sequence identity). For the entire structure, the minor pilin GBS52 of
the Gram-positive bacterium Streptococcus agalactiae (Krishnan et al., 2007
) is among the top hits (fifth), with an r.m.s.d. of 5.7 Å for 145 aligned Cα atoms (PDB code 2pz4 ; Z = 4.1, 10% sequence identity). TM-align (Zhang & Skolnick, 2005
) aligned BT1062 to GBS52 with an r.m.s.d. of 4.8 Å for 175 Cα atoms. Despite the large r.m.s.d. value, this match is significant since both proteins
are fimbrial components. The two domains of both proteins have an identical fold (i.e. the same topology of the seven core strands). GBS52 does not have long inserts between
core β-strands in its two domains, except for the BC loop of the first domain, while BT1062 contains several significant insertions between
core strands in both domains (Fig. 2
). The most significant additional structural feature of BT1062 is a small β-sheet at the domain boundary formed by the EF loop of domain I and the BC loop of domain II (Fig. 3
). Domain II contains a three-helix insertion between strands F and G as well as a β-hairpin attachment (β20–β21) at the C-terminus. Thus, domain II of BT1062 deviates more significantly from
the prototypical seven-stranded core domain, although some members of the transthyretin
family have an additional β-strand that would correspond to β20. A similar two-domain arrangement is also observed for the S. pyogenes major pilin Spy0128 (TM-align r.m.s.d. of 5.3 Å for 178 aligned Cα atoms; Kang et al., 2007
; Fig. 3
). Given the overall structural similarity and functional overlap, it seems possible
that these pilin components might be derived from a common ancestral fold through
divergent evolution. The basic fold of the seven core strands in these proteins has
previously been described as IgG-like (Krishnan et al., 2007
). We have avoided such a description here owing to a lack of clear evidence to establish
an evolutionary relationship between the IgG-like fold (SCOP ID 48725) and the transthyretin-like
fold (SCOP ID 49451) (Andreeva et al., 2004
).
3.4. A conserved fold for fimbrial components
A sequence-similarity search using PSI-BLAST against the nonredundant (nr) database at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) indicated that the family size of DUF1812 can be significantly expanded, with >1000 hits almost exclusively from Bacteroidetes. There are 35 potential homologs from B. thetaiotaomicron alone, indicating the popularity of this fold in this bacterium. Interestingly, the identified homologs include components of both the major fimbriae and the minor fimbriae of P. gingivalis. In addition to the BT1062 homologs in minor fimbriae discussed above, major fimbrial components, such as FimA and the accessory proteins FimC, FimD and FimE, are expected to adopt a similar fold to BT1062. Thus, DUF1812 is a collection of diverse proteins that are likely to be fimbrial components. These proteins are likely to be adapted from a single fold to serve different functions. Many of these remote homologs also contain the highly conserved tryptophan (Trp308 in BT1062) described above.
The details of the biogenesis of Mfa1-like fimbriae are still unclear. A recent study
suggested that P. gingivalis Mfa2 is likely to anchor the Mfa1 fimbriae to the outer membrane and to regulate
the length of the Mfa1 filament (Hasegawa et al., 2009). Mfa2 is present in the outer membrane and may directly interact with Mfa1. Most
sequence homologs of BT1062 and Mfa2 contain two highly conserved cysteines at the
N-terminus (Cys25 and Cys35) located near the tip of the bilobal molecule. The first
invariant cysteine was predicted to be the lipoprotein signal-peptide cleavage site
(between 24 and 25) by the LipoP server (Juncker et al., 2003
). This cysteine is likely to be the last residue of the lipoprotein signal-sequence
motif [lipobox motif (L/V)XXC, X = A/S/G/T] and is directly involved in membrane attachment of the matured lipoprotein
via a thioether bond (Braun & Wu, 1994
). The role of the second conserved cysteine is currently not clear. It may also be
involved in membrane attachment owing to its close proximity to the first cysteine.
The conformation of the peptide between the two conserved cysteines is likely to be
flexible since residues 24–33 are exposed to solvent and disordered in the crystal
with no interpretable electron density. The most conserved surface residues of BT1062
homologs correspond to a short sequence motif 306N(G/D)W308 located in the β20–β21 loop. This exposed site is likely to be involved in interaction with Mfa1 and thus
to be important for the function of BT1062. The spatial arrangement of the potential
membrane-attachment site and protein–protein interaction site may be functionally
significant as the location of the potential membrane-attachment site would allow
more freedom and accessibility of a membrane-attached elongated molecule.
4. Conclusions
Bioinformatics studies, combined with experimental evidence from the related bacteria P. gingivalis, allow us to identify at least one putative operon that is likely to be involved in fimbrial assembly in B. thetaiotaomicron and other related bacteria. Our structural studies of the BT1062 protein in this operon revealed surprising structural similarities to the minor pilin GBS52 of S. agalactiae and the major pilin Spy0128 of S. pyogenes, both of which are Gram-positive bacteria. We demonstrated that a tandem repeat of the transthyretin-like fold is also likely to be adopted by other components of Bacteroides fimbriae, such as the major pili subunit FimA of P. gingivalis. These results may suggest a common evolutionary origin for this type of fimbrial component in both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Thus, our studies contribute new insights into the evolution of fimbriae (pili).
Additional information about BT1062 is available from TOPSAN (Krishna et al., 2010) at https://www.topsan.org/explore?pdbID=3gf8 .
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grant U54 GM074898 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences Protein Structure Initiative (https://www.nigms.nih.gov ). Portions of this research were carried out at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL). The SSRL is a national user facility operated by Stanford University on behalf of the US DOE, OBES. The SSRL Structural Molecular Biology Program is supported by the DOE, OBER and by NIH (NCRR, BTP and NIGMS). Genomic DNA from B. thetaiotaomicron VPI-5482 (ATCC No. 29148D-5) was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences or the National Institutes of Health.
References
Aloy, P., Companys, V., Vendrell, J., Aviles, F. X., Fricker, L. D., Coll, M. & Gomis-Ruth,
F. X. (2001). J. Biol. Chem. 276, 16177–16184. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Andreeva, A., Howorth, D., Brenner, S. E., Hubbard, T. J., Chothia, C. & Murzin, A.
G. (2004). Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D226–D229. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Beitz, E. (2000). Bioinformatics, 16, 135–139. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Braun, V. & Wu, H. C. (1994). New Compr. Biochem. 27, 319–341. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Bricogne, G., Vonrhein, C., Flensburg, C., Schiltz, M. & Paciorek, W. (2003). Acta Cryst. D59, 2023–2030. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Chung, W. O., Demuth, D. R. & Lamont, R. J. (2000). Infect. Immun. 68, 6758–6762. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Cohen, A. E., Ellis, P. J., Miller, M. D., Deacon, A. M. & Phizackerley, R. P. (2002).
J. Appl. Cryst. 35, 720–726. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Collaborative Computational Project, Number 4 (1994). Acta Cryst. D50, 760–763. CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Cruickshank, D. W. J. (1999). Acta Cryst. D55, 583–601. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Diederichs, K. & Karplus, P. A. (1997). Nature Struct. Biol. 4, 269–275. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Emsley, P. & Cowtan, K. (2004). Acta Cryst. D60, 2126–2132. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Hamada, N., Sojar, H. T., Cho, M. I. & Genco, R. J. (1996). Infect. Immun. 64, 4788–4794. CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Iwami, J., Sato, K., Park, Y., Nishikawa, K., Atsumi, T., Moriguchi,
K., Murakami, Y., Lamont, R. J., Nakamura, H., Ohno, N. & Yoshimura, F. (2009). Microbiology, 155, 3333–3347. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Holm, L. & Sander, C. (1995). Trends Biochem. Sci. 20, 478–480. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Juncker, A. S., Willenbrock, H., Von Heijne, G., Brunak, S., Nielsen, H. & Krogh,
A. (2003). Protein Sci. 12, 1652–1662. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Kang, H. J., Coulibaly, F., Clow, F., Proft, T. & Baker, E. N. (2007). Science, 318, 1625–1628. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Karlsson, A. & Sauer-Eriksson, A. E. (2007). Acta Cryst. F63, 695–700. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Kleywegt, G. J. (2000). Acta Cryst. D56, 249–265. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Klock, H. E., Koesema, E. J., Knuth, M. W. & Lesley, S. A. (2008). Proteins, 71, 982–994. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Krishna, S. S., Weekes, D., Bakolitsa, C., Elsliger, M.-A., Wilson, I. A., Godzik,
A. & Wooley, J. (2010). Acta Cryst. F66, 1143–1147. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Krishnan, V., Gaspar, A. H., Ye, N., Mandlik, A., Ton-That, H. & Narayana, S. V. (2007).
Structure, 15, 893–903. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Lesley, S. A. et al. (2002). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 99, 11664–11669. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Lovell, S. C., Davis, I. W., Arendall, W. B. III, de Bakker, P. I., Word, J. M., Prisant,
M. G., Richardson, J. S. & Richardson, D. C. (2003). Proteins, 50, 437–450. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Matthews, B. W. (1968). J. Mol. Biol. 33, 491–497. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Park, Y., Simionato, M. R., Sekiya, K., Murakami, Y., James, D., Chen, W., Hackett,
M., Yoshimura, F., Demuth, D. R. & Lamont, R. J. (2005). Infect. Immun. 73, 3983–3989. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Pumbwe, L., Skilbeck, C. A. & Wexler, H. M. (2006). Anaerobe, 12, 211–220. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Santarsiero, B. D., Yegian, D. T., Lee, C. C., Spraggon, G., Gu, J., Scheibe, D.,
Uber, D. C., Cornell, E. W., Nordmeyer, R. A., Kolbe, W. F., Jin, J., Jones, A. L.,
Jaklevic, J. M., Schultz, P. G. & Stevens, R. C. (2002). J. Appl. Cryst. 35, 278–281. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Sheldrick, G. M. (2008). Acta Cryst. A64, 112–122. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Shinjo, T. & Kiyoyama, H. (1984). Nippon Juigaku Zasshi, 46, 373–375. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Terwilliger, T. C. (2003). Acta Cryst. D59, 1174–1182. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G. & Gibson, T. J. (1994). Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 4673–4680. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Vriend, G. (1990). J. Mol. Graph. 8, 52–56. CrossRef CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Weiss, M. S. & Hilgenfeld, R. (1997). J. Appl. Cryst. 30, 203–205. CrossRef CAS Web of Science IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Winn, M. D., Murshudov, G. N. & Papiz, M. Z. (2003). Methods Enzymol. 374, 300–321. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Xu, J., Bjursell, M. K., Himrod, J., Deng, S., Carmichael, L. K., Chiang, H. C., Hooper,
L. V. & Gordon, J. I. (2003). Science, 299, 2074–2076. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Yang, H., Guranovic, V., Dutta, S., Feng, Z., Berman, H. M. & Westbrook, J. D. (2004).
Acta Cryst. D60, 1833–1839. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Yoshimura, F., Murakami, Y., Nishikawa, K., Hasegawa, Y. & Kawaminami, S. (2009).
J. Periodontal Res. 44, 1–12. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Yoshimura, F., Takahashi, K., Nodasaka, Y. & Suzuki, T. (1984). J. Bacteriol. 160, 949–957. CAS PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. (2005). Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 2302–2309. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.