Advertisement

Colloid and Polymer Science

, Volume 286, Issue 2, pp 129–137 | Cite as

Monte Carlo analysis of sedimentation experiments

  • Borries DemelerEmail author
  • Emre Brookes
Original Contribution

Abstract

High resolution analysis approaches for sedimentation experiments have recently been developed that promise to provide a detailed description of heterogeneous samples by identifying both shape and molecular weight distributions. In this study, we describe the effect experimental noise has on the accuracy and precision of such determinations and offer a stochastic Monte Carlo approach, which reliably quantifies the effect of noise by determining the confidence intervals for the parameters that describe each solute. As a result, we can now predict reliable confidence intervals for determined parameters. We also explore the effect of various experimental parameters on the confidence intervals and provide suggestions for improving the statistics by applying a few practical rules for the design of sedimentation experiments.

Keywords

Two-dimensional spectrum analysis Genetic algorithms UltraScan Analytical ultracentrifugation Molecular weight determination Curve fitting 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mr. Jeremy Mann for the assistance with the supercomputing facility at the UTHSCSA Bioinformatics Core Facility. Funding from the National Science Foundation (Grant #DBI-9974819), the National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 R01 RR022200-01A1), and the San Antonio Life Science Institute (SALSI #10001642) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Demeler B, Saber H (1998) Determination of molecular parameters by fitting sedimentation data to finite-element solutions of the Lamm equation. Biophys J 74(1):444–454Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brookes E, Demeler B (2006) Genetic algorithm optimization for obtaining accurate molecular weight distributions from sedimentation velocity experiments. In: Wandrey C, Cölfen H (eds) Analytical Ultracentrifugation VIII, Progr., Springer, Colloid Polym Sci 131:78–82Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brookes E, Boppana RV, Demeler B (2006) Computing large non-negative least squares-type problems with an application in biophysics. In: Supercomputing Conference ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schuck P (2000) Size-distribution analysis of macromolecules by sedimentation velocity ultracentrifugation and Lamm equation modeling. Biophys J 78(3):1606–1619Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schuck P (1998) Sedimentation analysis of noninteracting and self-associating solutes using numerical solutions to the Lamm equation. Biophys J 75:1503–1512Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stafford WF, Sherwood PJ (2004) Analysis of heterologous interacting systems by sedimentation velocity: curve fitting algorithms for estimation of sedimentation coefficients, equilibrium and kinetic constants. Biophys Chem 108(1–3):231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown, PH, Schuck P (2006) Macromolecular size-and-shape distributions by sedimentation velocity analytical ultracentrifugation. Biophys J 90(12):4651–4661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lamm O (1929) Die Differentialgleichung der Ultrazentrifugierung. Ark Mat Astron Fys 21B:1–4Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuck P, Demeler B (1999) Direct sedimentation analysis of interference optical data in analytical ultracentrifugation. Biophys J 76(4):2288–2296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stafford WF (2000) Analysis of reversibly interacting macromolecular systems by time derivative sedimentation velocity. Methods Enzymol 323:302–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aster RC, Borchers B, Thurber CH (2005) Parameter estimation and inverse problems. Elsevier, New York, pp 35–36Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demeler B (2005) UltraScan website and software download. http://www.ultrascan.uthscsa.edu
  13. 13.
    Demeler B (2005) UltraScan: a comprehensive data analysis software package for analytical ultracentrifugation experiments. Modern analytical ultracentrifugation: techniques and methods. In: Scott DJ, Harding SE, Rowe AJ (eds) Royal Society of Chemistry (UK), pp 210–229Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Box GEP, Muller ME (1958) A note on the generation of random normal deviates. Ann Math Stat 29:610–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Demeler B, van Holde KE (2004) Sedimentation velocity analysis of highly heterogeneous systems. Anal Biochem 335(2):279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brookes E, Demeler B (2007) Parsimonious regularization using genetic algorithms applied to the analysis of analytical ultracentrifugation experiments. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, London (in press)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Demeler B, Radhakrishnan I (2006) Coupled unfolding and dimerization by the PAH2 domain of the mammalian Sin3A corepressor. J Mol Biol 360(1):7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Belogrudov GI, Schirf V, Demeler B (2006) Reversible self-association of recombinant bovine factor B. Biochim Biophys Acta 1764(11):1741–1749Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Comoletti D, Flynn RE, Boucard AA, Jennings LL, Demeler B, Schirf V, Newlin HR, Shi J, Südhof TC, Taylor P (2006) Gene selection, alternative splicing, and post-translational processing regulate neuroligin selectivity for beta-neurexins. Biochemistry 45(42):12816–12827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khakshoor O, Demeler B, Nowick JS (2007) Macrocyclic β-sheet peptides that mimic protein quaternary structure through intermolecular β-sheet interactions. J Am Chem Soc 129(17):5558–5569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lawson CL, Hanson RJ (1974) Solving least squares problems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiochemistryUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations