Journal of Biomolecular NMR

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 201–209 | Cite as

Chemical shift prediction for denatured proteins

  • James H. Prestegard
  • Sarata C. Sahu
  • Wendy K. Nkari
  • Laura C. Morris
  • David Live
  • Christian Gruta
Article

Abstract

While chemical shift prediction has played an important role in aspects of protein NMR that include identification of secondary structure, generation of torsion angle constraints for structure determination, and assignment of resonances in spectra of intrinsically disordered proteins, interest has arisen more recently in using it in alternate assignment strategies for crosspeaks in 1H–15N HSQC spectra of sparsely labeled proteins. One such approach involves correlation of crosspeaks in the spectrum of the native protein with those observed in the spectrum of the denatured protein, followed by assignment of the peaks in the latter spectrum. As in the case of disordered proteins, predicted chemical shifts can aid in these assignments. Some previously developed empirical formulas for chemical shift prediction have depended on basis data sets of 20 pentapeptides. In each case the central residue was varied among the 20 amino common acids, with the flanking residues held constant throughout the given series. However, previous choices of solvent conditions and flanking residues make the parameters in these formulas less than ideal for general application to denatured proteins. Here, we report 1H and 15N shifts for a set of alanine based pentapeptides under the low pH urea denaturing conditions that are more appropriate for sparse label assignments. New parameters have been derived and a Perl script was created to facilitate comparison with other parameter sets. A small, but significant, improvement in shift predictions for denatured ubiquitin is demonstrated.

Keywords

Sparse labeling Disordered proteins Denatured proteins NMR Resonance assignments 

References

  1. Bennion BJ, Daggett V (2003) The molecular basis for the chemical denaturation of proteins by urea. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:5142–5147ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Camilloni C, De Simone A, Vranken WF, Vendruscolo M (2012) Determination of secondary structure populations in disordered states of proteins using nuclear magnetic resonance chemical shifts. Biochemistry 51:2224–2231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Simone A, Cavalli A, Hsu STD, Vranken W, Vendruscolo M (2009) Accurate random coil chemical shifts from an analysis of loop regions in native states of proteins. J Am Chem Soc 131:16332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dutta A, Saxena K, Schwalbe H, Klein-Seetharaman J (2012) Isotope labeling in mammalian cells. In: Shekhtman A, Burz DS (eds) Protein NMR techniques. Methods in molecular biology, vol 831, 3 edn. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp 55–69Google Scholar
  5. Dyson HJ, Wright PE (2005) Intrinsically unstructured proteins and their functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 6:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feng L, Lee HS, Prestegard JH (2007) NMR resonance assignments for sparsely 15N labeled proteins. J Biomol NMR 38:213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gossert AD, Hinniger A, Gutmann S, Jahnke W, Strauss A, Fernandez C (2011) A simple protocol for amino acid type selective isotope labeling in insect cells with improved yields and high reproducibility. J Biomol NMR 51:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kemmink J, Creighton TE (1993) Local conformations of peptides representing the entire sequence of bovine pancreatic trypsin-inhibitor and their roles in folding. J Mol Biol 234:861–878Google Scholar
  9. Kjaergaard M, Poulsen FM (2011) Sequence correction of random coil chemical shifts: correlation between neighbor correction factors and changes in the Ramachandran distribution. J Biomol NMR 50:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lange OF, Rossi P, Sgourakis NG, Song YF, Lee HW, Aramini JM, Ertekin A, Xiao R, Acton TB, Montelione GT, Baker D (2012) Determination of solution structures of proteins up to 40 kDa using CS-Rosetta with sparse NMR data from deuterated samples. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:10873–10878ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li WF, Qin M, Tie ZX, Wang W (2011) Effects of solvents on the intrinsic propensity of peptide backbone conformations. Phys Rev E 84:041933ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marsh JA, Singh VK, Jia Z, Forman-Kay JD (2006) Sensitivity of secondary structure propensities to sequence differences between alpha- and gamma-synuclein: implications for fibrillation. Protein Sci 15:2795–2804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nkari WK, Prestegard JH (2009) NMR resonance assignments of sparsely labeled proteins: amide proton exchange correlations in native and denatured states. J Am Chem Soc 131:5344–5349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Peti W, Smith LJ, Redfield C, Schwalbe H (2001) Chemical shifts in denatured proteins: resonance assignments for denatured ubiquitin and comparisons with other denatured proteins. J Biomol NMR 19:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Raman S, Lange OF, Rossi P, Tyka M, Wang X, Aramini J, Liu GH, Ramelot TA, Eletsky A, Szyperski T, Kennedy MA, Prestegard J, Montelione GT, Baker D (2010) NMR structure determination for larger proteins using backbone-only data. Science 327:1014–1018ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rezaei-Ghaleh N, Blackledge M, Zweckstetter M (2012) Intrinsically disordered proteins: from sequence and conformational properties toward drug discovery. ChemBioChem 13:930–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwarzinger S, Kroon GJ, Foss TR, Chung J, Wright PE, Dyson HJ (2001) Sequence-dependent correction of random coil NMR chemical shifts. J Am Chem Soc 123:2970–2978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shen Y, Delaglio F, Cornilescu G, Bax A (2009) TALOS+: a hybrid method for predicting protein backbone torsion angles from NMR chemical shifts. J Biomol NMR 44:213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shi ZS, Chen K, Liu ZG, Kallenbach NR (2006) Conformation of the backbone in unfolded proteins. Chem Rev 106:1877–1897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Takeuchi K, Ng E, Malia TJ, Wagner G (2007) 1-13C amino acid selective labeling in a 2H15N background for NMR studies of large proteins. J Biomol NMR 38:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tamiola K, Acar B, Mulder FA (2010) Sequence-specific random coil chemical shifts of intrinsically disordered proteins. J Am Chem Soc 132:18000–18003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ting D, Wang GL, Shapovalov M, Mitra R, Jordan MI, Dunbrack RL (2010) Neighbor-dependent Ramachandran probability distributions of amino acids developed from a hierarchical dirichlet process model. PLoS Comput Biol 6:e1000763MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang Y, Jardetzky O (2002a) Investigation of the neighboring residue effects on protein chemical shifts. J Am Chem Soc 124:14075–14084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang Y, Jardetzky O (2002b) Probability-based protein secondary structure identification using combined NMR chemical-shift data. Protein Sci 11:852–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wishart DS, Bigam CG, Holm A, Hodges RS, Sykes BD (1995a) 1H, 13C and 15N random coil NMR chemical shifts of the common amino acids. I. Investigations of nearest-neighbor effects. J Biomol NMR 5:67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wishart DS, Bigam CG, Yao J, Abildgaard F, Dyson HJ, Oldfield E, Markley JL, Sykes BD (1995b) H-1, C-13 AND N-15 chemical-shift referencing in biomolecular NMR. J Biomol NMR 6:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • James H. Prestegard
    • 1
  • Sarata C. Sahu
    • 1
  • Wendy K. Nkari
    • 1
  • Laura C. Morris
    • 1
  • David Live
    • 1
  • Christian Gruta
    • 1
  1. 1.AthensUSA

Personalised recommendations