NMR structures consist in ensembles of conformers, all satisfying the experimental restraints, which exhibit a certain degree of structural variability. We analyzed here the interface in NMR ensembles of protein–protein heterodimeric complexes and found it to span a wide range of different conservations. The different exhibited conservations do not simply correlate with the size of the systems/interfaces, and are most probably the result of an interplay between different factors, including the quality of experimental data and the intrinsic complex flexibility. In any case, this information is not to be missed when NMR structures of protein–protein complexes are analyzed; especially considering that, as we also show here, the first NMR conformer is usually not the one which best reflects the overall interface. To quantify the interface conservation and to analyze it, we used an approach originally conceived for the analysis and ranking of ensembles of docking models, which has now been extended to directly deal with NMR ensembles. We propose this approach, based on the conservation of the inter-residue contacts at the interface, both for the analysis of the interface in whole ensembles of NMR complexes and for the possible selection of a single conformer as the best representative of the overall interface. In order to make the analyses automatic and fast, we made the protocol available as a web tool at: https://www.molnac. unisa.it/BioTools/consrank/consrank-nmr.html.

Analysis of the interface variability in NMR structure ensembles of protein-protein complexes / Calvanese, Luisa; D'Auria, Gabriella; Vangone, Anna; Falcigno, Lucia; Oliva, Romina. - In: JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY. - ISSN 1047-8477. - 194:3(2016), pp. 317-324. [10.1016/j.jsb.2016.03.008]

Analysis of the interface variability in NMR structure ensembles of protein-protein complexes

CALVANESE, LUISA
Primo
;
D'AURIA, GABRIELLA
Secondo
;
FALCIGNO, LUCIA
Penultimo
;
2016

Abstract

NMR structures consist in ensembles of conformers, all satisfying the experimental restraints, which exhibit a certain degree of structural variability. We analyzed here the interface in NMR ensembles of protein–protein heterodimeric complexes and found it to span a wide range of different conservations. The different exhibited conservations do not simply correlate with the size of the systems/interfaces, and are most probably the result of an interplay between different factors, including the quality of experimental data and the intrinsic complex flexibility. In any case, this information is not to be missed when NMR structures of protein–protein complexes are analyzed; especially considering that, as we also show here, the first NMR conformer is usually not the one which best reflects the overall interface. To quantify the interface conservation and to analyze it, we used an approach originally conceived for the analysis and ranking of ensembles of docking models, which has now been extended to directly deal with NMR ensembles. We propose this approach, based on the conservation of the inter-residue contacts at the interface, both for the analysis of the interface in whole ensembles of NMR complexes and for the possible selection of a single conformer as the best representative of the overall interface. In order to make the analyses automatic and fast, we made the protocol available as a web tool at: https://www.molnac. unisa.it/BioTools/consrank/consrank-nmr.html.
2016
Analysis of the interface variability in NMR structure ensembles of protein-protein complexes / Calvanese, Luisa; D'Auria, Gabriella; Vangone, Anna; Falcigno, Lucia; Oliva, Romina. - In: JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY. - ISSN 1047-8477. - 194:3(2016), pp. 317-324. [10.1016/j.jsb.2016.03.008]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/633529
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact