2MIO
Solution NMR Structure of SH3 Domain 1 of Rho GTPase-activating Protein 10 from Homo sapiens, Northeast Structural Genomics Consortium (NESG) Target HR9129A
SOLUTION NMR
NMR Experiment | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Experiment | Type | Sample Contents | Solvent | Ionic Strength | pH | Pressure | Temperature (K) | Spectrometer |
1 | 2D 1H-15N HSQC | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
2 | 2D 1H-13C CT HSQC aliphatic | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
3 | 3D HNCO | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
4 | 3D CBCA(CO)NH | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
5 | 3D HNCACB | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
6 | 2D 1H-13C CT HSQC aromatic | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
7 | 3D simutaneous 13C-aromatic,13C-aliphatic,15N edited 1H-1H NOESY | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
8 | 2D 1H-13C HSQC aliphatic | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
9 | 2D 1H-13C HSQC aromatic | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
10 | 3D HBHA(CO)NH | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
11 | 3D(H)CCH-TOCSY ali | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
12 | 3D (H)CCH-COSY ali | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
13 | GFT-43D (H)CCH-COSY aromatic | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
14 | 3D HN(CA)CO | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
15 | gNfHSQC_His | 0.72 mM 10% 13C U-100% 15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
16 | 2D 1H-15N HSQC | 0.72 mM U-100% 13C-U-100%15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
17 | 2D 1H-13C ct-HSQC methyl(28ms) | 0.72 mM U-100% 13C-U-100%15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
18 | 2D 1H-13C CT HSQC-methyl (42ms) | 0.72 mM U-100% 13C-U-100%15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
19 | 2D 1H-13C CT HSQC-methyl (56ms) | 0.72 mM U-100% 13C-U-100%15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 | ||
20 | 2D J-modulation 1H-15N HSQC | 0.72 mM U-100% 13C-U-100%15N labeled protein | 90% H2O/10% D2O | 6.5 | ambient | 298 |
NMR Spectrometer Information | |||
---|---|---|---|
Spectrometer | Manufacturer | Model | Field Strength |
1 | Varian | INOVA | 600 |
NMR Refinement | ||
---|---|---|
Method | Details | Software |
simulated annealing | Structure determination was performed by running CYANA and ASDP in parallel using NOE-based constraints and PHI and PSI dihedral angle constraints from TALOSN. Consensus peak assignments were selected and used in iterative refinement with CYANA. The 20 conformers out of 100 with the lowest target function were further refined by simulated annealing in explicit water bath using the program CNS with PARAM19 force field NMR. | CNS |
NMR Ensemble Information | |
---|---|
Conformer Selection Criteria | target function |
Conformers Calculated Total Number | 100 |
Conformers Submitted Total Number | 20 |
Representative Model | 1 (lowest energy) |
Computation: NMR Software | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
# | Classification | Version | Software Name | Author |
1 | refinement | CNS | Brunger, Adams, Clore, Gros, Nilges and Read | |
2 | structure solution | CNS | Brunger, Adams, Clore, Gros, Nilges and Read | |
3 | geometry optimization | CNS | Brunger, Adams, Clore, Gros, Nilges and Read | |
4 | refinement | CYANA | 3.0 | Guntert, Mumenthaler and Wuthrich |
5 | geometry optimization | CYANA | 3.0 | Guntert, Mumenthaler and Wuthrich |
6 | structure solution | CYANA | 3.0 | Guntert, Mumenthaler and Wuthrich |
7 | data analysis | AutoStructure | 2.1 | Huang, Tejero, Powers and Montelione |
8 | refinement | AutoStructure | 2.1 | Huang, Tejero, Powers and Montelione |
9 | data analysis | AutoAssign | 2.1 | Zimmerman, Moseley, Kulikowski and Montelione |
10 | chemical shift assignment | AutoAssign | 2.1 | Zimmerman, Moseley, Kulikowski and Montelione |
11 | data analysis | XEASY | Bartels et al. | |
12 | peak picking | XEASY | Bartels et al. | |
13 | chemical shift assignment | XEASY | Bartels et al. | |
14 | collection | VnmrJ | Varian | |
15 | geometry optimization | TALOSN | Shen, Cornilescu, Delaglio and Bax | |
16 | structure validation | PSVS | Bhattacharya, Montelione | |
17 | processing | PSVS | Bhattacharya, Montelione | |
18 | structure validation | PSVS | Guntert | |
19 | processing | PSVS | Guntert | |
20 | structure validation | PSVS | Bhattacharya, Montelione | |
21 | processing | PSVS | Bhattacharya, Montelione | |
22 | structure validation | PSVS | Guntert | |
23 | processing | PSVS | Guntert | |
24 | data analysis | CSI | David Wishart,Leigh Willard,Tim Jellard,Brian Sykes | |
25 | data analysis | MOLMOL | Koradi, Billeter and Wuthrich |