1 / 17

Solving NMR structures I

Solving NMR structures I. --deriving distance restraints from crosspeak intensities in NOESY spectra --deriving dihedral angle restraints from J couplings; measuring J couplings. Using NOESY to generate nOe distance restraints.

venice
Download Presentation

Solving NMR structures I

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Solving NMR structures I --deriving distance restraints from crosspeak intensities in NOESY spectra --deriving dihedral angle restraints from J couplings; measuring J couplings

  2. Using NOESY to generate nOe distance restraints • NOESY measurements are not steady-state nOe’s: we are not saturating one resonance with constant irradiation while observing the effects at another. • Instead, we are pulsing all of the resonances, and then allowing nOe’s to build up through cross-relaxation during a mixing time --so nOe’s in a NOESY are kinetic: crosspeak intensities will vary with mixing time • typical tm’s used in an NOESY will be 20-200 ms. from Glasel & Deutscher p. 354 mixing time basic NOESY pulse sequence

  3. nOe buildup in NOESY • other things being equal, the initial rateof buildup of a NOESY crosspeak is proportional to 1/r6, where r is the distance between the two nuclei undergoing cross-relaxation. • nOe buildup will be faster for larger proteins, which have a longer correlation time tc, and therefore more efficient zero-quantum cross-relaxation • initially crosspeak intensity builds up linearly with time, but then levels off, and at very long mixing time will actually start to drop due to direct (not cross) relaxation.

  4. spin diffusion • under certain circumstances, indirect cross-relaxation pathways can be more efficient than direct ones, i.e. A to B to C more efficient than A to C. This is called spin diffusion • when this happens the crosspeak intensity may not be a faithful reflection of the distance between the two nuclei.

  5. Crosspeaks due to spin diffusion exhibit delayed buildup in NOESY experiments • spin diffusion peaks • are usually observed • at long mixing time, and their intensity does not reflect the initial rate of buildup • these effects can be avoided either by sticking with short mixing times or by examining buildup curves over a range of mixing times

  6. Other nOe caveats • I mentioned that nOe buildup rates are faster for larger proteins because of the longer correlation time • It’s also true that buildup rates can differ for nuclei within the same protein if different parts of the protein have different mobility (hence different correlation times) • for parts of the protein which are relatively rigid (such as the hydrophobic core) correlation times will more or less reflect that of the whole protein molecule--nOe buildup will be fast • disordered regions (at the N- or C-termini, for instance) may have much shorter effective correlation times and much slower nOe buildup as a consequence • the bottom line is, the actual nOe observed between two nuclei at a given distance r is often less than that expected on the basis of the overall molecular correlation time.

  7. The goal: translating NOESY crosspeak intensities into nOe distance restraints • because the nOe is not always a faithful reflection of the internuclear distance, one does not, in general, precisely translate intensities into distances! • instead, one usually creates three or four restraint classes which match a range of crosspeak intensities to a range of possible distances, e.g. classrestraintdescription *for protein w/Mr<20 kDa strong 1.8-2.7 Å strong intensity in short tm (~50 ms*) NOESY medium 1.8-3.3 Å weak intensity in short tm (~50 ms*) NOESY weak 1.8-5.0 Å only visible in longer mixing time NOESY • notice that the lower bound of 1.8 Å (approximately van der Waals contact) is the same in all restraint classes. This is because, for reasons stated earlier, atoms that are very close can nonetheless have very weak nOe’s, or even no visible crosspeak at all.

  8. Calibration of nOe’s • the crosspeak intensities are often calibrated against the crosspeak intensity of some internal standard where the internuclear distance is known. The idea of this is to figure out what the maximal nOe observable will be for a given distance. • this calibration can then be used • to set intensity cutoffs for restraint • classes, often using a 1/r6 dependence tyrosine d-e distance always the same! • ideally, one chooses • an internal standard • where the maximal nOe • will be observed (i.e. something not undergoing a lot of motion)

  9. Coupling constants and dihedral angles • there are relationships between three-bond scalar coupling constants3Jand the corresponding dihedral anglesq, called Karplus relations: 3J = Acos2q + Bcosq + C from p. 30 Evans textbook

  10. Empirical Karplus relations in proteins • comparison of 3J values measured in solution with dihedral angles observed in crystal structures of the same protein allows one to derive empirical Karplus relations: coupling constants in solution vs. f angles from crystal structure for BPTI these two quantities differ by 60° because they are defined differently from p. 167 Wuthrich textbook

  11. Empirical Karplus relations in proteins • here are some empirical Karplus relations: 3JHa,HN(f)= 6.4 cos2(f - 60°) -1.4 cos(f - 60°) + 1.9 3JHa,Hb2(c1)= 9.5 cos2(c1- 120°) -1.6 cos(c1- 120°) + 1.8 3JHa,Hb3(c1)= 9.5 cos2(c1) -1.6 cos(c1) + 1.8 3JN,Hb3(c1)= -4.5 cos2(c1+ 120°) +1.2 cos(c1+ 120°) + 0.1 3JN,Hb2(c1)= 4.5 cos2(c1- 120°) +1.2 cos(c1- 120°) + 0.1 • notice that use of the relations involving the b hydrogens would require that they be stereospecifically assigned (in cases where there are two b hydrogens) • note that these relations involve f or c1 angles

  12. Measuring 3JHN-Ha: 3D HNHA ratio of crosspeak to diagonal intensities can be related to 3JHN-Ha J large J small HN to Ha crosspeak HN diagonal peak this is one plane of a 3D spectrum of ubiquitin. The plane corresponds to this 15N chemical shift Archer et al. J. Magn. Reson. 95, 636 (1991).

  13. 3D HNHB • similar to HNHA but measures 3JN-Hb couplings DeMarco, Llinas, & Wuthrich Biopolymers 17, p. 2727 (1978). for c1 =180 both 3JNb ~1 Hz for c1 =+60,-60 one is ~5, other is ~1 can’t tell the difference unless b’s are stereospecifically assigned

  14. 3D HN(CO)HB experiment • complementary to HNHB • measures 3JC,Hbcouplings for a particular b proton, if q=180, 3JC,Hb= ~8 Hz if q=+60 or -60, 3JC,Hb= ~1 Hz Grzesiek et al. J. Magn. Reson. 95, 636 (1991).

  15. HNHB and HN(CO)HB together 3JC,Hb3= small 3JC,Hb2= large 3JN,Hb3= small 3JN,Hb2= small 3JC,Hb3= large 3JC,Hb2= small 3JN,Hb3= small 3JN,Hb2= large 3JC,Hb3= small 3JC,Hb2= small 3JN,Hb3= large 3JN,Hb2= small

  16. HNHB, HN(CO)HB together • can thus get both c1 angle and stereospecific assignments for b’s from a combination of HNHB and HN(CO)HB HNHB HN(CO)HB from Bax et al. Meth. Enzym. 239, 79.

  17. Dihedral angle restraints • derived from measured J couplings • as with nOe’s, one does not translate J directly into a quantitative dihedral angle, rather one translates a range of J into a range of possible angles, e.g. 3JHa,HN(f)< 6 Hz f= -65° ± 25° 3JHa,HN(f)> 8 Hz f= -120 ± 40°

More Related