Applying an Empirical Hydropathic Forcefield in Refinement May Improve Low-Resolution Protein X-Ray Crystal Structures

BACKGROUND: The quality of X-ray crystallographic models for biomacromolecules refined from data obtained at high-resolution is assured by the data itself. However, at low-resolution, >3.0 Å, additional information is supplied by a forcefield coupled with an associated refinement protocol. These resulting structures are often of lower quality and thus unsuitable for downstream activities like structure-based drug discovery. METHODOLOGY: An X-ray crystallography refinement protocol that enhances standard methodology by incorporating energy terms from the HINT (Hydropathic INTeractions) empirical forcefield is described. This protocol was tested by refining synthetic low-resolution structural data derived from 25 diverse high-resolution structures, and referencing the resulting models to these structures. The models were also evaluated with global structural quality metrics, e.g., Ramachandran score and MolProbity clashscore. Three additional structures, for which only low-resolution data are available, were also re-refined with this methodology. RESULTS: The enhanced refinement protocol is most beneficial for reflection data at resolutions of 3.0 Å or worse. At the low-resolution limit, ≥4.0 Å, the new protocol generated models with Cα positions that have RMSDs that are 0.18 Å more similar to the reference high-resolution structure, Ramachandran scores improved by 13%, and clashscores improved by 51%, all in comparison to models generated with the standard refinement protocol. The hydropathic forcefield terms are at least as effective as Coulombic electrostatic terms in maintaining polar interaction networks, and significantly more effective in maintaining hydrophobic networks, as synthetic resolution is decremented. Even at resolutions ≥4.0 Å, these latter networks are generally native-like, as measured with a hydropathic interactions scoring tool

Structural Dynamic of a Self-Assembling Peptide d-EAK16 Made of Only D-Amino Acids

We here report systematic study of structural dynamics of a 16-residue self-assembling peptide d-EAK16 made of only D-amino acids. We compare these results with its chiral counterpart L-form, l-EAK16. Circular dichroism was used to follow the structural dynamics under various temperature and pH conditions. At 25°C the d-EAK16 peptide displayed a typical beta-sheet spectrum. Upon increasing the temperature above 70°C, there was a spectrum shift as the 218 nm valley widens toward 210 nm. Above 80°C, the d-EAK16 peptide transformed into a typical alpha-helix CD spectrum without going through a detectable random-coil intermediate. When increasing the temperature from 4°C to 110°C then cooling back from 110°C to 4°C, there was a hysteresis: the secondary structure from beta-sheet to alpha-helix and then from alpha-helix to beta-sheet occurred. d-EAK16 formed an alpha-helical conformation at pH0.76 and pH12 but formed a beta-sheet at neutral pH. The effects of various pH conditions, ionic strength and denaturing agents were also noted. Since D-form peptides are resistant to natural enzyme degradation, such drastic structural changes may be exploited for fabricating molecular sensors to detect minute environmental changes. This provides insight into the behaviors of self-assembling peptides made of D-amino acids and points the way to designing new peptide materials for biomedical engineering and nanobiotechnology

Federating structural models and data:Outcomes from a workshop on archiving integrative structures

Structures of biomolecular systems are increasingly computed by integrative modeling. In this approach, a structural model is constructed by combining information from multiple sources, including varied experimental methods and prior models. In 2019, a Workshop was held as a Biophysical Society Satellite Meeting to assess progress and discuss further requirements for archiving integrative structures. The primary goal of the Workshop was to build consensus for addressing the challenges involved in creating common data standards, building methods for federated data exchange, and developing mechanisms for validating integrative structures. The summary of the Workshop and the recommendations that emerged are presented here

Structural genomics is the largest contributor of novel structural leverage

The Protein Structural Initiative (PSI) at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is funding four large-scale centers for structural genomics (SG). These centers systematically target many large families without structural coverage, as well as very large families with inadequate structural coverage. Here, we report a few simple metrics that demonstrate how successfully these efforts optimize structural coverage: while the PSI-2 (2005-now) contributed more than 8% of all structures deposited into the PDB, it contributed over 20% of all novel structures (i.e. structures for protein sequences with no structural representative in the PDB on the date of deposition). The structural coverage of the protein universe represented by today’s UniProt (v12.8) has increased linearly from 1992 to 2008; structural genomics has contributed significantly to the maintenance of this growth rate. Success in increasing novel leverage (defined in Liu et al. in Nat Biotechnol 25:849–851, 2007) has resulted from systematic targeting of large families. PSI’s per structure contribution to novel leverage was over 4-fold higher than that for non-PSI structural biology efforts during the past 8 years. If the success of the PSI continues, it may just take another ~15 years to cover most sequences in the current UniProt database

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

CASA: An Efficient Automated Assignment of Protein Mainchain NMR Data Using an Ordered Tree Search Algorithm

Rapid analysis of protein structure, interaction, and dynamics requires fast and automated assignments of 3D protein backbone triple-resonance NMR spectra. We introduce a new depth-first ordered tree search method of automated assignment, CASA, which uses hand-edited peak-pick lists of a flexible number of triple resonance experiments. The computer program was tested on 13 artificially simulated peak lists for proteins up to 723 residues, as well as on the experimental data for four proteins. Under reasonable tolerances, it generated assignments that correspond to the ones reported in the literature within a few minutes of CPU time. The program was also tested on the proteins analyzed by other methods, with both simulated and experimental peaklists, and it could generate good assignments in all relevant cases. The robustness was further tested under various situations.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43050/1/10858_2005_Article_4079.pd

A method for validating the accuracy of NMR protein structures

We present a method that measures the accuracy of NMR protein structures. It compares random coil index [RCI] against local rigidity predicted by mathematical rigidity theory, calculated from NMR structures [FIRST], using a correlation score (which assesses secondary structure), and an RMSD score (which measures overall rigidity). We test its performance using: structures refined in explicit solvent, which are much better than unrefined structures; decoy structures generated for 89 NMR structures; and conventional predictors of accuracy such as number of restraints per residue, restraint violations, energy of structure, ensemble RMSD, Ramachandran distribution, and clashscore. Restraint violations and RMSD are poor measures of accuracy. Comparisons of NMR to crystal structures show that secondary structure is equally accurate, but crystal structures are typically too rigid in loops, whereas NMR structures are typically too floppy overall. We show that the method is a useful addition to existing measures of accuracy

Outcome of the First wwPDB/CCDC/D3R Ligand Validation Workshop.

Crystallographic studies of ligands bound to biological macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids) represent an important source of information concerning drug-target interactions, providing atomic level insights into the physical chemistry of complex formation between macromolecules and ligands. Of the more than 115,000 entries extant in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive, ∼75% include at least one non-polymeric ligand. Ligand geometrical and stereochemical quality, the suitability of ligand models for in silico drug discovery and design, and the goodness-of-fit of ligand models to electron-density maps vary widely across the archive. We describe the proceedings and conclusions from the first Worldwide PDB/Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center/Drug Design Data Resource (wwPDB/CCDC/D3R) Ligand Validation Workshop held at the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics at Rutgers University on July 30-31, 2015. Experts in protein crystallography from academe and industry came together with non-profit and for-profit software providers for crystallography and with experts in computational chemistry and data archiving to discuss and make recommendations on best practices, as framed by a series of questions central to structural studies of macromolecule-ligand complexes. What data concerning bound ligands should be archived in the PDB? How should the ligands be best represented? How should structural models of macromolecule-ligand complexes be validated? What supplementary information should accompany publications of structural studies of biological macromolecules? Consensus recommendations on best practices developed in response to each of these questions are provided, together with some details regarding implementation. Important issues addressed but not resolved at the workshop are also enumerated.The workshop was supported by funding to RCSB PDB by the National Science Foundation (DBI 1338415); PDBe by the Wellcome Trust (104948); PDBj by JST-NBDC; BMRB by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM109046); D3R by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM111528); registration fees from industrial participants; and tax-deductible donations to the wwPDB Foundation by the Genentech Foundation and the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Cell Press via https://doi.org//10.1016/j.str.2016.02.01