The effects of rigid motions on elastic network model force constants
Corresponding Author
Timothy R. Lezon
Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Suite 3064 BST3, 3501 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15260===Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Timothy R. Lezon
Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Suite 3064 BST3, 3501 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15260===Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Elastic network models provide an efficient way to quickly calculate protein global dynamics from experimentally determined structures. The model's single parameter, its force constant, determines the physical extent of equilibrium fluctuations. The values of force constants can be calculated by fitting to experimental data, but the results depend on the type of experimental data used. Here, we investigate the differences between calculated values of force constants and data from NMR and X-ray structures. We find that X-ray B factors carry the signature of rigid-body motions, to the extent that B factors can be almost entirely accounted for by rigid motions alone. When fitting to more refined anisotropic temperature factors, the contributions of rigid motions are significantly reduced, indicating that the large contribution of rigid motions to B factors is a result of over-fitting. No correlation is found between force constants fit to NMR data and those fit to X-ray data, possibly due to the inability of NMR data to accurately capture protein dynamics. Proteins 2012; © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
REFERENCES
- 1 MaJ. Usefulness and limitations of normal mode analysis in modeling dynamics of biomolecular complexes. Structure 2005; 13: 373–380.
- 2 TamaF,BrooksC. Symmetry, form, and shape: guiding principles for robustness in macromolecular machines. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2006; 35: 115–133.
- 3 KondrashovDA,CuiQ,PhillipsGN,Jr. Optimization and evaluation of a coarse-grained model of protein motion using x-ray crystal data. Biophys J 2006; 91: 2760–2767.
- 4 BaharI,LezonTR,BakanA,ShrivastavaIH. Normal mode analysis of biomolecular structures: functional mechanisms of membrane proteins. Chem Rev 2010; 110: 1463–1497.
- 5 BaharI,AtilganA,ErmanB. Direct evaluation of thermal fluctuations in proteins using a single-parameter harmonic potential. Folding Des 1997; 2: 173–181.
- 6
HinsenK.
Analysis of domain motions by approximate normal mode calculations.
Proteins
1998;
33:
417–429.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19981115)33:3<417::AID-PROT10>3.0.CO;2-8 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 7
HinsenK,ThomasA,FieldM.
Analysis of domain motions in large proteins.
Proteins
1999;
34:
369–382.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19990215)34:3<369::AID-PROT9>3.0.CO;2-F CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 8
DorukerP,AtilganA,BaharI.
Dynamics of proteins predicted by molecular dynamics simulations and analytical approaches: application to alpha-amylase inhibitor.
Proteins
2000;
40:
512–524.
10.1002/1097-0134(20000815)40:3<512::AID-PROT180>3.0.CO;2-M CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 9 AtilganA,DurellS,JerniganR,DemirelM,KeskinO,BaharI. Anisotropy of fluctuation dynamics of proteins with an elastic network model. Biophys J 2001; 80: 505–515.
- 10 MaragakisP,KarplusM. Large amplitude conformational change in proteins explored with a plastic network model: adenylate kinase. J Mol Biol 2005; 352: 807–822.
- 11 ChuJW,VothGA. Coarse-grained free energy functions for studying protein conformational changes: a double-well network model. Biophys J 2007; 93: 3860–3871.
- 12 YangZ,MajekP,BaharI. Allosteric transitions of supramolecular systems explored by network models: application to chaperonin groel. PLoS Comput Biol 2009; 5.
- 13 EyalE,BaharI. Toward a molecular understanding of the anisotropic response of proteins to external forces: insights from elastic network models. Biophys J 2008; 94: 3424–3435.
- 14 YangZ,BaharI,WidomM. Vibrational dynamics of icosahedrally symmetric biomolecular assemblies compared with predictions based on continuum elasticity. Biophys J 2009; 96: 4438–4448.
- 15 SonneJ,KandtC,PetersGH,HansenFY,JensenMO,TielemanDP. Simulation of the coupling between nucleotide binding and transmembrane domains in the atp binding cassette transporter btucd. Biophys J 2007; 92: 2727–2734.
- 16 IsinB,SchultenK,TajkhorshidE,BaharI. Mechanism of signal propagation upon retinal isomerization: insights from molecular dynamics simulations of rhodopsin restrained by normal modes. Biophys J 2008; 95: 789–803.
- 17 CruickshankD. The analysis of the anisotropic thermal motion of molecules in crystals. Acta Crystallogr B 1956; 24: 754–756.
- 18 SchomakerV,TruebloodK. On the rigid-body motion of molecules in crystals. Acta Cryst 1968; B24: 63–76.
- 19 KideraA,GōN. Normal mode refinement: crystallographic refinement of protein dynamic structure i. theory ant test by simulated diffraction data. J Mol Biol 1992; 225: 457–475.
- 20 KideraA,InakaK,MatsushimaM,GōN. Normal mode refinement: crystallographic refinement of protein dynamic structure ii. Application to human lysozyme. J Mol Biol 1992; 225: 477–486.
- 21 KunduS,MeltonJ,SorensenD,PhillipsG. Dynamics of proteins in crystals: comparison of experiment with simple models. Biophys J 2002; 83: 723–732.
- 22 SongG,JerniganRL. vgnm: a better model for understanding the dynamics of proteins in crystals. J Mol Biol 2007; 369: 880–893.
- 23 EyalE,ChennubhotlaC,YangLW,BaharI. Anisotropic fluctuations of amino acids in protein structures: insights from x-ray crystallography and elastic network models. Bioinformatics 2007; 23: I175–I184.
- 24 HinsenK. Structural flexibility in proteins: impact of the crystal environment. Bioinformatics 2008; 24: 521–528.
- 25 RiccardiD,CuiQ,PhillipsGNJr. Application of elastic network models to proteins in the crystalline state. Biophys J 2009; 96: 464–475.
- 26 SoheilifardR,MakarovDE,RodinGJ. Critical evaluation of simple network models of protein dynamics and their comparison with crystallographic b-factors. Phys Biol 2008; 5.
- 27 BaharI,LezonTR,YangLW,EyalE. Global dynamics of proteins: bridging between structure and function. Annu Rev Biophys 2010; 39: 23–42.
- 28 YangLW,EyalE,ChennubhotlaC,JeeJ,GronenbornAM,BaharI. Insights into equilibrium dynamics of proteins from comparison of NMR and x-ray data with computational predictions. Structure 2007; 15: 741–749.
- 29 HinsenK,PetrescuA,DellerueS,Bellissent-FunelM,KnellerG. Harmonicity in slow protein dynamics. Chem Phys 2000; 261: 25– 37.
- 30 MingD,WallM. Allostery in a coarse-grained model of protein dynamics. Phys Rev Lett 2005; 95.
- 31 MoritsuguK,SmithJC. Coarse-grained biomolecular simulation with reach: realistic extension algorithm via covariance hessian. Biophys J 2007; 93: 3460–3469.
- 32 LezonTR,BaharI. Using entropy maximization to understand the determinants of structural dynamics beyond native contact topology. PLoS Comp Biol 2010; 6.
- 33 GarbuzynskiyS,MelnikB,LobanovM,FinkelsteinA,GalzitskayaO. Comparison of x-ray and NMR structures: is there a systematic difference in residue contacts between x-ray and NMR-resolved protein structures? Proteins 2005; 60: 139–147.
- 34 KimM,JerniganR,ChirikjianG. An elastic network model of hk97 capsid maturation. J Struct Biol 2003; 143: 107–117.
- 35 KruschelD,ZagrovicB. Conformational averaging in structural biology: issues, challenges and computational solutions. Mol Biosyst 2009; 5: 1606–1616.
- 36 MittermaierAK,KayLE. Observing biological dynamics at atomic resolution using NMR. Trends Biochem Sci 2009; 34: 601–611.
- 37 SpronkC,NabuursS,BonvinA,KriegerE,VuisterG,VriendG. The precision of NMR structure ensembles revisited. J Biomol NMR 2003; 25: 225–234.
- 38 Lindorff-LarsenK,BestR,DePristoM,DobsonC,VendruscoloM. Simultaneous determination of protein structure and dynamics. Nature 2005; 433: 128–132.
- 39 RiepingW,HabeckM,NilgesM. Inferential structure determination. Science 2005; 309: 303–306.
- 40 RichterB,GsponerJ,VarnaiP,SalvatellaX,VendruscoloM. The mumo (minimal under-restraining minimal over-restraining) method for the determination of native state ensembles of proteins. J Biomol NMR 2007; 37: 117–135.
- 41 LaughtonCA,OrozcoM,VrankenW. Coco: a simple tool to enrich the representation of conformational variability in NMR structures. Proteins 2009; 75: 206–216.
- 42 LangeOF,LakomekNA,FaresC,SchroederGF,WalterKFA,BeckerS,MeilerJ,GrubmuellerH,GriesingerC,de GrootBL. Recognition dynamics up to microseconds revealed from an rdc-derived ubiquitin ensemble in solution. Science 2008; 320: 1471–1475.
- 43 BakanA,BaharI. The intrinsic dynamics of enzymes plays a dominant role in determining the structural changes induced upon inhibitor binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009; 106: 14349–14354.
- 44 FriedlandGD,LakomekNA,GriesingerC,MeilerJ,KortemmeT. A correspondence between solution-state dynamics of an individual protein and the sequence and conformational diversity of its family. PLoS Comput Biol 2009; 5.
- 45 LiuL,KoharudinLMI,GronenbornAM,BaharI. A comparative analysis of the equilibrium dynamics of a designed protein inferred from NMR, x-ray, and computations. Proteins 2009; 77: 927–939.
- 46 YangLW,EyalE,BaharI,KitaoA. Principal component analysis of native ensembles of biomolecular structures (pca_nest): insights into functional dynamics. Bioinformatics 2009; 25: 606–614.
- 47
AbseherR,HorstinkL,HilbersC,NilgesM.
Essential spaces defined by NMR structure ensembles and molecular dynamics simulation show significant overlap.
Proteins
1998;
31:
370–382.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19980601)31:4<370::AID-PROT4>3.0.CO;2-M CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar