Optimization of resolution and sensitivity of 4D NOESY using Multi-dimensional Decomposition
Highly resolved multi-dimensional NOE data are essential for rapid and accurate determination of spatial protein structures such as in structural genomics projects. Four-dimensional spectra contain almost no spectral overlap inherently present in lower dimensionality spectra and are highly amenable to application of automated routines for spectral resonance location and assignment. However, a high resolution 4D data set using conventional uniform sampling usually requires unacceptably long measurement time. Recently we have reported that the use of non-uniform sampling and multi-dimensional decomposition (MDD) can remedy this problem. Here we validate accuracy and robustness of the method, and demonstrate its usefulness for fully protonated protein samples. The method was applied to 11 kDa protein PA1123 from structural genomics pipeline. A systematic evaluation of spectral reconstructions obtained using 15–100% subsets of the complete reference 4D 1H–13C–13C–1H NOESY spectrum has been performed. With the experimental time saving of up to six times, the resolution and the sensitivity per unit time is shown to be similar to that of the fully recorded spectrum. For the 30% data subset we demonstrate that the intensities in the reconstructed and reference 4D spectra correspond with a correlation coefficient of 0.997 in the full range of spectral amplitudes. Intensities of the strong, middle and weak cross-peaks correlate with coefficients 0.9997, 0.9965, and 0.83. The method does not produce false peaks. 2% of weak peaks lost in the 30% reconstruction is in line with theoretically expected noise increase for the shorter measurement time. Together with good accuracy in the relative line-widths these translate to reliable distance constrains derived from sparsely sampled, high resolution 4D NOESY data.
Key wordsNMR NOESY non-uniform sampling structural genomics
- 3DD and 4DD
MDD for three and four dimensions
number of spectral components
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Barna, J.C.J, Laue, E.D., Mayger, M.R., Skilling, J., Worrall, S.J.P. 1987J. Magn. Reson.736977Google Scholar
- Christendat, D., Yee, A., Dharamsi, A., Kluger, Y., Savchenko, A., Cort, J.R., Booth, V., Mackereth, C.D., Saridakis, V., Ekiel, I., Kozlov, G., Maxwell, K.L., Wu, N., McIntosh, L.P., Gehring, K., Kennedy, M.A., Davidson, A.R., Pai, E.F., Gerstein, M., Edwards, A.M., Arrowsmith, C.H. 2000Nat. Struct. Biol.7903909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Delaglio, F., Grzesiek, S., Vuister, G.W., Zhu, G., Pfeifer, J., Bax, A. 1995J. Biomol. NMR6277293Google Scholar
- Hoch, J.C., Stern, A.S. 1996NMR Data ProcessiongWiley-LissNew YorkGoogle Scholar
- Laue, E.D., Mayger, M.R., Skilling, J., Staunton, J. 1986J. Magn. Reson.681429Google Scholar
- Schmieder, P., Stern, A.S., Wagner, G., Hoch, J.C. 1994J.␣Biomol. NMR4483490Google Scholar
- Tikhonov, A.N., Samarskij, A.A. 1990Equations of Mathematical PhysicsDoverNew YorkGoogle Scholar