Journal of Biomolecular NMR

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 85–98

RDC derived protein backbone resonance assignment using fragment assembly

  • Xingsheng Wang
  • Brian Tash
  • John M. Flanagan
  • Fang Tian
Article

Abstract

Experimental residual dipolar couplings (RDCs) in combination with structural models have the potential for accelerating the protein backbone resonance assignment process because RDCs can be measured accurately and interpreted quantitatively. However, this application has been limited due to the need for very high-resolution structural templates. Here, we introduce a new approach to resonance assignment based on optimal agreement between the experimental and calculated RDCs from a structural template that contains all assignable residues. To overcome the inherent computational complexity of such a global search, we have adopted an efficient two-stage search algorithm and included connectivity data from conventional assignment experiments. In the first stage, a list of strings of resonances (CA-links) is generated via exhaustive searches for short segments of sequentially connected residues in a protein (local templates), and then ranked by the agreement of the experimental 13Cα chemical shifts and 15N-1H RDCs to the predicted values for each local template. In the second stage, the top CA-links for different local templates in stage I are combinatorially connected to produce CA-links for all assignable residues. The resulting CA-links are ranked for resonance assignment according to their measured RDCs and predicted values from a tertiary structure. Since the final RDC ranking of CA-links includes all assignable residues and the assignment is derived from a “global minimum”, our approach is far less reliant on the quality of experimental data and structural templates. The present approach is validated with the assignments of several proteins, including a 42 kDa maltose binding protein (MBP) using RDCs and structural templates of varying quality. Since backbone resonance assignment is an essential first step for most of biomolecular NMR applications and is often a bottleneck for large systems, we expect that this new approach will improve the efficiency of the assignment process for small and medium size proteins and will extend the size limits assignable by current methods for proteins with structural models.

Keywords

Backbone resonance assignment Residual dipolar couplings Structure-assisted resonance assignment 

Supplementary material

10858_2010_9467_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (648 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 625 kb)

References

  1. Al-Hashimi HM, Valafar H, Terrell M, Zartler ER, Eidsness MK, Prestegard JH (2000) Variation of molecular alignment as a means of resolving orientational ambiguities in protein structures from dipolar couplings. J Magn Reson 143:402–406CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrec M, Du PC, Levy RM (2001) Protein backbone structure determination using only residual dipolar couplings from one ordering medium. J Biomol NMR 21:335–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apaydin MS, Conitzer V, Donald BR (2008) Structure-based protein NMR assignments using native structural ensembles. J Biomol NMR 40:263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arbogast L, Majumdar A, Tolman JR (2010) HNCO-based measurement of one-bond amide 15N-1H couplings with optimized precision. J Biomol NMR 46:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker D, Sali A (2001) Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science 294:93–96CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels C, Billeter M, Guntert P, Wuthrich K (1996) Automated sequence-specific NMR assignment of homologous proteins using the program GARANT. J Biomol NMR 7:207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bax A, Grishaev A (2005) Weak alignment NMR: a hawk-eyed view of biomolecular structure. Curr Opin Struct Biol 15:563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bermejo GA, Llinas M (2010) Structure-oriented methods for protein NMR data analysis. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 56:311–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertelsen EB, Chang L, Gestwicki JE, Zuiderweg ERP (2009) Solution conformation of wild-type E. coli Hsp70 (DnaK) chaperone complexed with ADP and substrate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:8471–8476CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhattacharya A, Revington M, Zuiderweg ERP (2010) Measurement and interpretation of 15N-1H residual dipolar couplings in larger proteins. J Magn Reson 203:11–28CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryson M, Tian F, Prestegard JH, Valafar H (2008) REDCRAFT: a tool for simultaneous characterization of protein backbone structure and motion from RDC data. J Magn Reson 191:322–334CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. Bujnicki JM (2006) Protein-structure prediction by recombination of fragments. ChemBioChem 7:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavalli A, Salvatella X, Dobson CM, Vendruscolo M (2007) Protein structure determination from NMR chemical shifts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:9615–9620CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavanagh J, Fairbrother WJ, Palmer AG III, Skelton NJ, Rance M (2006) Protein NMR pectroscopy, second edition: principles and practice. Elservier Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  15. Clore GM, Iwaha J (2009) Theory, practice, and applications of paramagnetic relaxation enhancement for the characterization of transient low-population states of biological macromolecules and their complexes. Chem Rev 109:4108–4139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clore GM, Gronenborn AM, Bax A (1998) A robust method for determining the magnitude of the fully asymmetric alignment tensor of oriented macromolecules in the absence of structural information. J Magn Reson 133:216–221CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  17. Coggins BE, Zhou P (2003) PACES: protein sequential assignment by computer-assisted exhaustive search. J Biomol NMR 26:93–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crippen GM, Rousaki A, Revington M, Zhang YB, Zuiderweg ERP (2010) SAGA: rapid automatic mainchain NMR assignment for large proteins. J Biomol NMR 46:281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Delaglio F, Kontaxis G, Bax A (2000) Protein structure determination using molecular fragment replacement and NMR dipolar couplings. J Am Chem Soc 122:2142–2143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donald BR, Martin J (2009) Automated NMR assignment and protein structure determination using sparse dipolar coupling constraints. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 55:101–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fitzkee NC, Bax A (2010) Facile measurement of 1H-15N residual dipolar couplings in larger perdeuterated proteins. J Biomol NMR 48:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frueh DP, Arthanari H, Koglin A, Walsh CT, Wagner G (2009) A double TROSY hNCAnH experiment for efficient assignment of large and challenging proteins. J Am Chem Soc 131:12880–12881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grishaev A, Tugarinov V, Kay LE, Trewhella J, Bax A (2008a) Refined solution structures of the 82-kDa enzyme malate synthase G from joint NMR and synchrotron SAXS restraints. J Biomol NMR 40:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grishaev A, Ying JF, Canny MD, Pardi A, Bax A (2008b) Solution structure of tRNAval from refinement of homology model against residual dipolar coupling and SAXS data. J Biomol NMR 42:99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen MR, Mueller L, Pardi A (1998) Tunable alignment of macromolecules by filamentous phage yields dipolar coupling interactions. Nat Struct Biol 5:1065–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hu K, Doucleff M, Clore GM (2009) Using multiple quantum coherence to increase the 15N resolution in a three-dimensional TROSY HNCO experiment for accurate PRE and RDC measurements. J Magn Reson 200:173–177CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  27. Hus J, Prompers JJ, Bruschweiler R (2002) Assignment strategy for proteins with known structure. J Magn Reson 157:119–123CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  28. Hwang TL, van Zijl PCM, Mori S (1998) Accurate quantitation of water-amide proton exchange rates using the phase-modulated CLEAN chemical EXchange (CLEANEX-PM) approach with a Fast-HSQC (FHSQC) detection scheme. J Biomol NMR 11:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jensen MR, Salmon L, Nodet G, Blackledge M (2010) Defining conformational ensembles of intrinsically disordered and partially folded proteins directly from chemical shifts. J Am Chem Soc 132:1270–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jung YS, Zweckstetter M (2004) Backbone assignment of proteins with known structure using residual dipolar couplings. J Biomol NMR 30:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jung Y, Sharma M, Zweckstetter M (2004) Simultaneous assignment and structure determination of protein backbones by using NMR dipolar couplings. Angew Chem Int Edit 43:3479–3481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Langmead CJ, Donald B (2004) An expectation/maximization nuclear vector replacement algorithm for automated NMR resonance assignments. J Biomol NMR 29:111–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marassi FM, Opella SJ (2000) A solid-state NMR index of helical membrane protein structure and topology. J Magn Reson 144:150–155CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  34. Meiler J, Baker D (2003) Rapid protein fold determination using unassigned NMR data. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:15404–15409CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  35. Meiler J, Baker D (2005) The fumarate sensor DcuS: progress in rapid protein fold elucidation by combining protein structure prediction methods with NMR spectroscopy. J Magn Reson 173:310–316CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  36. Mesleh MF, Opella SJ (2003) Dipolar waves as NMR maps of helices in proteins. J Magn Reson 163:288–299CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  37. Miao XJ, Mukhopadhyay R, Valafar H (2008) Estimation of relative order tensors, and reconstruction of vectors in space using unassigned RDC data and its application. J Magn Reson 194:202–211CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris LC, Valafar H, Prestegard JH (2004) Assignment of protein backbone resonances using connectivity, torsion angles and 13Cα chemical shifts. J Biomol NMR 29:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mukhopadhyay R, Miao XJ, Shealy P, Valafar H (2009) Efficient and accurate estimation of relative order tensors from lambda-maps. J Magn Reson 198:236–247CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  40. Neal S, Nip AM, Zhang HY, Wishart DS (2003) Rapid and accurate calculation of protein 1H, 13C and 15N chemical shifts. J Biomol NMR 26:215–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nietlispach D, Ito Y, Laue ED (2002) A novel approach for the sequential backbone assignment of large proteins: selective intra-HNCA and DQ-HNCA. J Am Chem Soc 124:11199–11207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ottiger M, Delaglio F, Bax A (1998) Measurement of J and dipolar couplings from simplified two-dimensional NMR spectra. J Magn Reson 131:373–378CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  43. Pintacuda G, Park AY, Keniry MA, Dixonj NE, Otting G (2006) Lanthanide labeling offers fast NMR approach to 3D structure determinations of protein-protein complex. J Am Chem Soc 128:3696–3702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Poget SF, Girvin ME (2007) Solution NMR of membrane proteins in bilayer mimics: small is beautiful, but sometimes bigger is better. Biochim Biophys Acta 1768:3098–3106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Prestegard JH, Bougault CM, Kishore AI (2004) Residual dipolar couplings in structure determination of biomolecules. Chem Rev 104:3519–3540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pristovsek P, Ruterjans H, Jerala R (2002) Semiautomatic sequence-specific assignment of proteins based on the tertiary structure—The program st2nmr. J Comput Chem 23:335–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roberts E, Eargle J, Wright D, Luthey-Schulten Z (2006) MultiSeq: unifying sequence and structure data for evolutionary analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 7:382. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruckert M, Otting G (2000) Alignment of biological macromolecules in novel nonionic liquid crystalline media for NMR experiments. J Am Chem Soc 122:7793–7797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sattler M, Griesinger C (1999) Heteronuclear multidimensional NMR experiments for the structure determination of proteins in solution employing pulsed field gradients. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 34:93–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schueler-Furman O, Wang C, Bradley P, Misura K, Baker D (2005) Progress on modeling of protein structures and interactions. Science 310:638–642CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  51. Shen Y, Lange O et al (2008) Consistent blind protein structure generation from NMR chemical shift data. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:4685–4690CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  52. Shen Y, Bryan PN, He YN, Orban J, Baker D, Bax A (2010) De novo structure generation using chemical shifts for proteins with high-sequence identity but different folds. Protein Sci 19:349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sprangers R, Velyvis A, Kay LE (2007) Solution NMR of supramolecular complexes: providing new insights into function. Nat Methods 4:697–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stratmann D, Heijenoort C, Guittet E (2008) NOEnet—use of NOE networks for NMR resonance assignment of proteins with known 3D structure. Bioinformatics 25:474–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stratmann D, Guittet E, van Heijenoort C (2009) Robust structure-based resonance assignment for functional protein studies by NMR. J Biomol NMR 46:157–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Takeuchi K, Wagner G (2006) NMR studies of protein interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 16:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Takeuchi K, Frueh DP, Hyberts SG, Sun ZYJ, Wagner G (2010) High-resolution 3D CANCA NMR experiments for complete mainchain assignments using Cα direct detection. J Am Chem Soc 132:2945–2951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tian F, Valafar H, Prestegard JH (2001) A dipolar coupling based strategy for simultaneous resonance assignment and structure determination of protein backbones. J Am Chem Soc 123:11791–11796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Valafar H, Prestegard JH (2004) REDCAT: a residual dipolar coupling analysis tool. J Magn Reson 167:228–241CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang JF, Denny JK et al (2000) Imaging membrane protein helical wheels. J Magn Reson 144:162–167CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  61. Warren JJ, Moore PB (2001) A maxium likelihood method for determining Da and R for sets of dipolar coupling data. J Magn Reson 149:271–275CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  62. Wider G, Wüthrich K (1999) NMR spectroscopy of large molecules and multimolecular assemblies in solution. Curr Opin Struct Biol 9:594–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Xiong F, Pandurangan G, Bailey-Kellogg C (2008) Contact replacement for NMR resonance assignment. Bioinformatics 24:I205–I213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Xu YQ, Zheng Y, Fan JS, Yang DW (2006a) A new strategy for structure determination of large proteins in solution without deuteration. Nat Methods 3:931–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Xu YZ, Wang XX, Yang J, Vaynberg J, Qin J (2006b) PASA—A program for automated protein NMR backbone signal assignment by pattern-filtering approach. J Biomol NMR 34:41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yang DW, Venters RA, Mueller G, Choy WY, Kay LE (1999) TROSY-based HNCO pulse sequences for the measurement of 1HN-15N, 15N-13CO, 1HN-13CO, 13CO-13Ca and 1HN-13Cα dipolar couplings in 15N, 13C, 2H-labeled proteins. J Biomol NMR 14:333–343Google Scholar
  67. Zhang Y (2009) Protein structure prediction: when is it useful? Curr Opin Struct Biol 19:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zweckstetter M (2003) Determination of molecular alignment tensors without backbone resonance assignment: aid to rapid analysis of protein-protein interactions. J Biomol NMR 27:41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zweckstetter M (2008) NMR: prediction of molecular alignment from structure using the PALES software. Nat Protoc 3:679–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zweckstetter M, Bax A (2001) Single-step determination of protein substructures using dipolar couplings: aid to structural gemonics. J Am Chem Soc 123:9490–9491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zweckstetter M, Bax A (2002) Evaluation of uncertainty in alignment tensors obtained from dipolar couplings. J Biomol NMR 23:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xingsheng Wang
    • 1
  • Brian Tash
    • 1
  • John M. Flanagan
    • 1
  • Fang Tian
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of MedicinePennsylvania State UniversityHersheyUSA

Personalised recommendations