2G7J

Solution NMR structure of the putative cytoplasmic protein ygaC from Salmonella typhimurium. Northeast Structural Genomics target StR72.


SOLUTION NMR
NMR Experiment
ExperimentTypeSample ContentsSolventIonic StrengthpHPressureTemperature (K)Spectrometer
13D_15N-separated_NOESY1.12mM U-13C,15N StR72, 20mM MES, 100mM NaCl, 5mM CaCl2, 10mM DTT, 0.02% NaN3, pH 6.55% D2O/95% H2O100 mM NaCl6.5ambient293
23D_13C-separated_NOESY1.12mM U-13C,15N StR72, 20mM MES, 100mM NaCl, 5mM CaCl2, 10mM DTT, 0.02% NaN3, pH 6.5100% D2O100 mM NaCl6.5ambient293
34D_13C-separated_NOESY1.12mM U-13C,15N StR72, 20mM MES, 100mM NaCl, 5mM CaCl2, 10mM DTT, 0.02% NaN3, pH 6.5100% D2O100 mM NaCl6.5ambient293
4HNHA1.12mM U-13C,15N StR72, 20mM MES, 100mM NaCl, 5mM CaCl2, 10mM DTT, 0.02% NaN3, pH 6.55% D2O/95% H2O100 mM NaCl6.5ambient293
5high resolution CH-HSQC (stereospecific assignment of Val/Leu methyls)1.07mM 5%-13C,U-15N StR72, 20mM MES, 100mM NaCl, 5mM CaCl2, 10mM DTT, 0.02% NaN3, pH 6.55% D2O/95% H2O100 mM NaCl6.5ambient293
6backbone TR expts1.12mM U-13C,15N StR72, 20mM MES, 100mM NaCl, 5mM CaCl2, 10mM DTT, 0.02% NaN3, pH 6.55% D2O/95% H2O100 mM NaCl6.5ambient293
73D HCCH-COSY1.12mM U-13C,15N StR72, 20mM MES, 100mM NaCl, 5mM CaCl2, 10mM DTT, 0.02% NaN3, pH 6.5100% D2O100 mM NaCl6.5ambient293
83D TOCSYs, aromatic expts1.12mM U-13C,15N StR72, 20mM MES, 100mM NaCl, 5mM CaCl2, 10mM DTT, 0.02% NaN3, pH 6.55% D2O/95% H2O100 mM NaCl6.5ambient293
NMR Spectrometer Information
SpectrometerManufacturerModelField Strength
1BrukerAvance600
2VarianINOVA600
3VarianINOVA750
NMR Refinement
MethodDetailsSoftware
simulated annealingTHE STRUCTURES ARE BASED ON A TOTAL OF 1759 CONFORMATIONALLY-RESTRICTING NOE-DERIVED DISTANCE CONSTRAINTS, 219 DIHEDRAL ANGLE CONSTRAINTS, AND 58 HYDROGEN BOND CONSTRAINTS (18.2 CONSTRAINTS PER RESIDUE, 6.7 LONG RANGE CONSTRAINTS PER RESIDUE, COMPUTED FOR RESIDUES 1 to 112 BY PSVS 1.2). STRUCTURE DETERMINATION WAS PERFORMED ITERATIVELY USING AUTOSTRUCTURE (XPLOR-NIH). AFTER A FINAL XPLOR CALCULATION USING THE FINAL CONSTRAINTS DERIVED FROM AUTOSTRUCTURE, THE 20 LOWEST ENERGY STRUCTURES OUT OF 100 WERE FURTHER REFINED BY RESTRAINED MOLECULAR DYANMICS/ENERGY MINIMIZATION IN EXPLICIT WATER (CNS). THE UNSTRUCTURED C-TERMINUS OF THE PROTEIN (EKTD + LEHHHHHH TAG) WERE INCLUDED IN ALL STRUCTURE CALCULATIONS BUT HAVE BEEN OMITTED FROM THIS DEPOSITION.XWINNMR
NMR Ensemble Information
Conformer Selection Criteriastructures with the lowest energy
Conformers Calculated Total Number100
Conformers Submitted Total Number20
Representative Model1 (lowest energy)
Additional NMR Experimental Information
DetailsTHE STRUCTURE WAS DETERMINED USING TRIPLE RESONANCE NMR SPECTROSCOPY. AUTOMATED BACKBONE ASSIGNMENTS WERE MADE USING AUTOASSIGN, AND THE ASSIGNMENTS WERE COMPLETED MANUALLY. AUTOMATIC NOESY ASSIGNMENTS AS WELL AS DISTANCE AND HYDROGEN BOND CONSTRAINTS WERE DETERMINED USING AUTOSTRUCTURE. DIHEDRAL ANGLE CONSTRAINTS WERE DETERMINED USING HYPER AND TALOS. COMPLETENESS OF NMR ASSIGNMENTS (EXCLUDING C-TERMINAL HHHHHH): BACKBONE, 100%, SIDE CHAIN, 94.6%, AROMATICS, 91.1%, STEREOSPECIFIC METHYL, 94.4%. FINAL STRUCTURE QUALITY FACTORS (FOR RESIDUES 1 to 112, PSVS 1.2), WHERE ORDERED RESIDUES [S(PHI) + S(PSI) > 1.8] COMPRISE 3-43,49-50,55-66,69-71,75-76,88-96,98-109: (A) RMSD (ORDERED RESIDUES): BB, 0.6, HEAVY ATOM, 1.1. (B) RAMACHANDRAN STATISTICS FOR ORDERED RESIDUES: MOST FAVORED, 87.4%, ADDITIONALLY ALLOWED, 12.4%, GENEROUSLY ALLOWED, 0.2%, DISALLOWED, 0.0%. (C) PROCHECK SCORES FOR ORDERED RESIDUES (RAW/Z-): PHI-PSI, -0.34/-1.02, ALL, -0.32/-1.89. (D) MOLPROBITY CLASH SCORE (RAW/Z-): 25.21/-2.80. (E) RPF SCORES FOR GOODNESS OF FIT TO NOESY DATA (ALL RESIDUES): RECALL, 0.971, PRECISION, 0.945, F-MEASURE, 0.958, DP-SCORE, 0.846.
Computation: NMR Software
#ClassificationVersionSoftware NameAuthor
1collectionXWINNMR3.5pl6Bruker
2collectionVNMR6.1CVarian
3data analysisSparky3.110Goddard & Kneller
4data analysisAUTOASSIGN1.17.0Zimmerman, Moseley, Montelione
5refinementAUTOSTRUCTURE2.1.1Huang & Montelione
6refinementXPLOR-NIH2.11.2Clore et al.
7refinementCNS1.1Brunger et al.
8data analysisPDBstat4.01Tejero & Montelione
9data analysisPSVS1.2Bhattacharya & Montelione