Notes
Slide Show
Outline
1
Algorithms for NMR Structure Determination
  • Jeffrey C. Hoch
  • UConn Health Center
  • Molecular, Microbial & Structural Biology
  • Bioinformatics Fall 2004
2
Text for today’s lecture
3
 EMBO practical course 2003:
 Structure determination of
biological macromolecules by
solution NMR
4
Structural constraints from NMR
5
 
6
How much information is needed to determine a protein structure?
  • N atoms
  • At least 3N–6 independent pieces of information (6 = 3 translational, 3 rotational degrees of freedom are meaningless)
  • Assuming a rigid, well-defined structure
7
 
8
Over- or underdetermined?
  • 100 residue protein ~ 1600 atoms
  • ~4800 independent pieces of information
  • 20-30 NMR restraints/residue


  • Restraints highly correlated
  • Structures not static


  • Structure under-determined by NMR data alone
9
Additional structural constraints
  • Sequence
  • Prior knowledge of amino acid structure
    Covalent connectivity
    “Allowed” conformations
  • S-S links
10
Protein dynamics
  • The impact of dynamics on NMR parameters can be substantial


  • Although the fluctuations are large, averaging usually makes measured parameters reflective of the average structure
11
Two main approaches
  • Restrained molecular dynamics simulation
    • Empirical potential energy function
  • Hybrid distance geometry – simulated annealing
    • Holonomic constraints (DG phase)
    • Empirical potential energy function (SA phase)
12
MD simulation
  • Thermal fluctuations of protein atoms can be treated classically using an empirical potential energy function U(x)


  • Forces:



  • Newton’s equations:
13
Empirical PE functions
14
Nonbonded interactions
  • UvdW and Uelec


  • Uelec form depends on solvent model
    Distance-dependent dielectric implicit solvation:


  • Implicit: N2 interactions; reduce to ~30N via switching functions S


  • Explicit: Periodic boundary conditions and Ewald summation
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
Structure Determination:
Constrained Optimization
  • Minimize Eemprical subject to the constraint that the structure is consistent with the experimental data


  • Define Eexperimental as a measure of the agreement between the structure and the experimental data
23
An equivalent unconstrained optimization
24
Eexperimental
25
Existence and uniqueness:
not guaranteed
  • Neither Eempirical nor Eexperimental are strictly convex --> multiple minima


  • Many plausible structure (low Eempirical) are consistent (low Eexperimental)
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
What are the appropriate weights for Eexp and Eemp

How do we ensure different types of experimental data are treated with equanimity?
30
 
31
 
32
 
33
 
34
 
35
 
36
 
37
 
38
 
39
 
40
 
41
 
42
 
43
 
44
 
45