A comparative analysis of the equilibrium dynamics of a designed protein inferred from NMR, X-ray, and computations
Lin Liu
Department of Computational Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Department of Structural Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Search for more papers by this authorLeonardus M. I. Koharudin
Department of Structural Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Angela M. Gronenborn
Department of Structural Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Angela M. Gronenborn, Department of Structural Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213===
Ivet Bahar, Department of Computational Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Suite 3064 Biomedical Science Tower 3, 3501 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213===
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Ivet Bahar
Department of Computational Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Angela M. Gronenborn, Department of Structural Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213===
Ivet Bahar, Department of Computational Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Suite 3064 Biomedical Science Tower 3, 3501 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213===
Search for more papers by this authorLin Liu
Department of Computational Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Department of Structural Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Search for more papers by this authorLeonardus M. I. Koharudin
Department of Structural Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Angela M. Gronenborn
Department of Structural Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Angela M. Gronenborn, Department of Structural Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213===
Ivet Bahar, Department of Computational Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Suite 3064 Biomedical Science Tower 3, 3501 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213===
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Ivet Bahar
Department of Computational Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Angela M. Gronenborn, Department of Structural Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Biomedical Science Tower 3, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213===
Ivet Bahar, Department of Computational Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Suite 3064 Biomedical Science Tower 3, 3501 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213===
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
A detailed analysis of high-resolution structural data and computationally predicted dynamics was carried out for a designed sugar-binding protein. The mean-square deviations in the positions of residues derived from nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) models and those inferred from X-ray crystallographic B-factors for two different crystal forms were compared with the predictions based on the Gaussian Network Model (GNM) and the results from molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. GNM systematically yielded a higher correlation than MD, with experimental data, suggesting that the lack of atomistic details in the coarse-grained GNM is more than compensated for by the mathematically exact evaluation of fluctuations using the native contacts topology. Evidence is provided that particular loop motions are curtailed by intermolecular contacts in the crystal environment causing a discrepancy between theory and experiments. Interestingly, the information conveyed by X-ray crystallography becomes more consistent with NMR models and computational predictions when ensembles of X-ray models are considered. Less precise (broadly distributed) ensembles indeed appear to describe the accessible conformational space under native state conditions better than B-factors. Our results highlight the importance of using multiple conformations obtained by alternative experimental methods, and analyzing results from both coarse-grained models and atomic simulations, for accurate assessment of motions accessible to proteins under native state conditions. Proteins 2009. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.
Filename | Description |
---|---|
PROT_22518_sm_SuppFigures1and2.pdf849.6 KB | Supporting Information Figure 1. Analysis of MD trajectories. (A) Time evolution of average RMSD (with respect to the starting conformation) in Cα-coordinates for three runs MD1 (black), MD2 (dark gray) and MD3 (light gray). (B) Motions along essential modes, illustrated for modes 1, 2, 4 and 16 evaluated for MD1, after excluding the equilibration period of 1500 ps. Supporting Information Figure 2. Cumulative correlations between mode spectra obtained from GNM and MD. (A) Cumulative squared cosines {σ2 (k)} ltot between ltot essential modes from MD simulations and each GNM mode (k) for ltot = 10 (black), 20 (gray) and 30 (white). (B) {σ2 (l)} ktot between top-ranking ktot = 10 (black), 20 (gray) and 30 (white) GNM modes with the MD modes (l) listed along the abscissa. Note, the dominant contribution of the slowest modes to the low frequency end of the spectrum, in each case, followed by the larger contribution of intermediate frequency, and then higher frequency modes, indicate the consistency between the two sets of mode spectra. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1 Hartmann H,Parak F,Steigemann W,Petsko GA,Ponzi DR,Frauenfelder H. Conformational substates in a protein: structure and dynamics of metmyoglobin at 80 K. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1982; 79: 4967–4971.
- 2 Frauenfelder H,Parak F,Young RD. Conformational substates in proteins. Annu Rev Biophys Biophys Chem 1988; 17: 451–479.
- 3 Frauenfelder H,Sligar SG,Wolynes PG. The energy landscapes and motions of proteins. Science 1991; 254: 1598–1603.
- 4 Bonvin AM,Rullmann JA,Lamerichs RM,Boelens R,Kaptein R. “Ensemble” iterative relaxation matrix approach: a new NMR refinement protocol applied to the solution structure of crambin. Proteins 1993; 15: 385–400.
- 5 Levin EJ,Kondrashov DA,Wesenberg GE,Phillips GN,Jr. Ensemble refinement of protein crystal structures: validation and application. Structure 2007; 15: 1040–1052.
- 6 Lange OF,Lakomek NA,Fares C,Schroder GF,Walter KF,Becker S,Meiler J,Grubmuller H,Griesinger C,de Groot BL. Recognition dynamics up to microseconds revealed from an RDC-derived ubiquitin ensemble in solution. Science 2008; 320: 1471–1475.
- 7 Lindorff-Larsen K,Best RB,DePristo MA,Dobson CM,Vendruscolo M. Simultaneous determination of protein structure and dynamics. Nature 2005; 433: 128–132.
- 8 Lipari G,Szabo A. Model-free approach to the interpretation of nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation in macromolecules. 2. Analysis of experimental results. J Am Chem Soc 1982; 104: 4559–4570.
- 9 Karplus M,McCammon JA. Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Nat Struct Biol 2002; 9: 646–652.
- 10 Cruickshank DWJ. The determination of the anisotropic thermal motion of atoms in crystals. Acta Cryst 1956; 9: 747–753.
- 11 Lumry R. Protein substructures and folded stability. Biophys Chem 2002; 101–102: 81–92.
- 12 Kolano C,Helbing J,Kozinski M,Sander W,Hamm P. Watching hydrogen-bond dynamics in a beta-turn by transient two-dimensional infrared spectroscopy. Nature 2006; 444: 469–472.
- 13 Duan Y,Wang L,Kollman PA. The early stage of folding of villin headpiece subdomain observed in a 200-nanosecond fully solvated molecular dynamics simulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998; 95: 9897–9902.
- 14
Abseher R,Horstink L,Hilbers CW,Nilges M.
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
- 15 Ringe D,Petsko GA. Study of protein dynamics by X-ray diffraction. Methods Enzymol 1986; 131: 389–433.
- 16 Akke M,Palmer AG. Monitoring macromolecular motions on microsecond to millisecond time scales by R1ρ-R1 constant relaxation time NMR spectroscopy. J Am Chem Soc 1996; 118: 911–912.
- 17 Srajer V,Teng T,Ursby T,Pradervand C,Ren Z,Adachi S,Schildkamp W,Bourgeois D,Wulff M,Moffat K. Photolysis of the carbon monoxide complex of myoglobin: nanosecond time-resolved crystallography. Science 1996; 274: 1726–1729.
- 18 Tirion MM. Large amplitude elastic motions in proteins from a single-parameter, atomic analysis. Phys Rev Lett 1996; 77: 1905–1908.
- 19 Bahar I,Atilgan AR,Erman B. Direct evaluation of thermal fluctuations in proteins using a single-parameter harmonic potential. Fold Des 1997; 2: 173–181.
- 20 Haliloglu T,Bahar I,Erman B. Gaussian dynamics of folded proteins. Phys Rev Lett 1997; 79: 3090.
- 21
Hinsen K.
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
- 22 Cui Q,Bahar I. Normal mode analysis: theory and applications to biological and chemical systems. London: CRC Press; 2006.
- 23 Yang LW,Eyal E,Bahar I,Kitao A. Principal component analysis of native ensembles of biomolecular structures (PCA_NEST): insights into functional dynamics. Bioinformatics 2009; 25: 606–614.
- 24 Bahar I,Rader AJ. Coarse-grained normal mode analysis in structural biology. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2005; 15: 586–592.
- 25 Ma J. Usefulness and limitations of normal mode analysis in modeling dynamics of biomolecular complexes. Structure 2005; 13: 373–380.
- 26 Tama F,Brooks CL. Symmetry, form, and shape: guiding principles for robustness in macromolecular machines. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2006; 35: 115–133.
- 27 Nicolay S,Sanejouand YH. Functional modes of proteins are among the most robust. Phys Rev Lett 2006; 96: 078104.
- 28 Bahar I,Chennubhotla C,Tobi D. Intrinsic dynamics of enzymes in the unbound state and relation to allosteric regulation. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2007; 17: 633–640.
- 29 Yang LW,Eyal E,Chennubhotla C,Jee J,Gronenborn AM,Bahar I. Insights into equilibrium dynamics of proteins from comparison of NMR and X-Ray data with computational predictions. Structure 2007; 15: 741–749.
- 30 Kundu S,Melton JS,Sorensen DC,Phillips GN,Jr. Dynamics of proteins in crystals: comparison of experiment with simple models. Biophys J 2002; 83: 723–732.
- 31 Schomaker V,Trueblood KN. On the rigid-body motion of molecules in crystals. Acta Cryst Section B 1968; 24: 63–76.
- 32 Eyal E,Chennubhotla C,Yang LW,Bahar I. Anisotropic fluctuations of amino acids in protein structures: insights from X-ray crystallography and elastic network models. Bioinformatics 2007; 23: i175–i184.
- 33 Kondrashov DA,Van Wynsberghe AW,Bannen RM,Cui Q,Phillips GN,Jr. Protein structural variation in computational models and crystallographic data. Structure 2007; 15: 169–177.
- 34 Poon BK,Chen X,Lu M,Vyas NK,Quiocho FA,Wang Q,Ma J. Normal mode refinement of anisotropic thermal parameters for a supramolecular complex at 3.42-A crystallographic resolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007; 104: 7869–7874.
- 35 Song G,Jernigan RL. vGNM: a better model for understanding the dynamics of proteins in crystals. J Mol Biol 2007; 369: 880–893.
- 36 Kondrashov DA,Zhang W,Aranda R,Stec B,Phillips GN,Jr. Sampling of the native conformational ensemble of myoglobin via structures in different crystalline environments. Proteins 2008; 70: 353–362.
- 37 Diamond R. On the use of normal modes in thermal parameter refinement: theory and application to the bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor. Acta Cryst A 1990; 46: 425–435.
- 38 Hinsen K. Structural flexibility in proteins: impact of the crystal environment. Bioinformatics 2008; 24: 521–528.
- 39 Clore GM,Gronenborn AM. New methods of structure refinement for macromolecular structure determination by NMR. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998; 95: 5891–5898.
- 40 Bewley CA,Gustafson KR,Boyd MR,Covell DG,Bax A,Clore GM,Gronenborn AM. Solution structure of cyanovirin-N, a potent HIV-inactivating protein. Nat Struct Biol 1998; 5: 571–578.
- 41 Sali A,Blundell TL. Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J Mol Biol 1993; 234: 779–815.
- 42 Word JM,Lovell SC,LaBean TH,Taylor HC,Zalis ME,Presley BK,Richardson JS,Richardson DC. Visualizing and quantifying molecular goodness-of-fit: small-probe contact dots with explicit hydrogen atoms. J Mol Biol 1999; 285: 1711–1733.
- 43 Adams PD,Grosse-Kunstleve RW,Hung LW,Ioerger TR,McCoy AJ,Moriarty NW,Read RJ,Sacchettini JC,Sauter NK,Terwilliger TC. PHENIX: building new software for automated crystallographic structure determination. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 2002; 58: 1948–1954.
- 44 Koradi R,Billeter M,Wüthrich K. MOLMOL: a program for display and analysis of macromolecular structures. J Mol Graph 1996; 14: 51–32.
- 45 Berman HM,Westbrook J,Feng Z,Gilliland G,Bhat TN,Weissig H,Shindyalov IN,Bourne PE. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2000; 28: 235–242.
- 46 Phillips JC,Braun R,Wang W,Gumbart J,Tajkhorshid E,Villa E,Chipot C,Skeel RD,Kale L,Schulten K. Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD. J Comput Chem 2005; 26: 1781–1802.
- 47 MacKerell AD,Bashford D,Bellott M,Dunbrack RL,Evanseck JD,Field MJ,Fischer S,Gao J,Guo H,Ha S,Joseph-McCarthy D,Kuchnir L,Kuczera K,Lau FTK,Mattos C,Michnick S,Ngo T,Nguyen DT,Prodhom B,Reiher WE,Roux B,Schlenkrich M,Smith JC,Stote R,Straub J,Watanabe M,Wiorkiewicz-Kuczera J,Yin D,Karplus M. All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J Phys Chem B 1998; 102: 3586–3616.
- 48 Amadei A,Linssen AB,Berendsen HJ. Essential dynamics of proteins. Proteins 1993; 17: 412–425.
- 49 Apaydin MS,Conitzer V,Donald BR. Structure-based protein NMR assignments using native structural ensembles. J Biomol NMR 2008; 40: 263–276.
- 50 Best RB,Lindorff-Larsen K,DePristo MA,Vendruscolo M. Relation between native ensembles and experimental structures of proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006; 103: 10901–10906.