Conformation‐dependent backbone geometry restraints set a new standard for protein crystallographic refinement

Ideal values of bond angles and lengths used as external restraints are crucial for the successful refinement of protein crystal structures at all but the highest of resolutions. The restraints in common use today have been designed on the assumption that each type of bond or angle has a single ideal value that is independent of context. However, recent work has shown that the ideal values are, in fact, sensitive to local conformation, and, as a first step towards using such information to build more accurate models, ultra‐high‐resolution protein crystal structures have been used to derive a conformation‐dependent library (CDL) of restraints for the protein backbone [Berkholz et al. (2009) Structure 17, 1316–1325]. Here, we report the introduction of this CDL into the phenix package and the results of test refinements of thousands of structures across a wide range of resolutions. These tests show that use of the CDL yields models that have substantially better agreement with ideal main‐chain bond angles and lengths and, on average, a slightly enhanced fit to the X‐ray data. No disadvantages of using the backbone CDL are apparent. In phenix, use of the CDL can be selected by simply specifying the cdl = True option. This successful implementation paves the way for further aspects of the context dependence of ideal geometry to be characterized and applied to improve experimental and predictive modeling accuracy.

[1]  R. Diamond,et al.  A mathematical model-building procedure for proteins , 1966 .

[2]  Peter Kramer,et al.  An Efficient General-Purpose Least-Squares Refinement Program for Macromolecular Structures , 1987 .

[3]  Comment on Stereochemical restraints revisited : how accurate are refinement targets and how much should protein structures be allowed to deviate from them ? by Jaskolski , Gilski , Dauter & Wlodawer ( 2007 ) , 2007 .

[4]  L. Schäfer,et al.  Predictions of relative structural trends from ab initio derived standard geometry functions , 1986 .

[5]  Predictions of protein backbone structural parameters from first principles: Systematic comparisons of calculated N-C(.alpha.)-C' angles with high-resolution protein crystallographic results , 1995 .

[6]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Conformation dependence of backbone geometry in proteins. , 2009, Structure.

[7]  Zbigniew Dauter,et al.  Stereochemical restraints revisited: how accurate are refinement targets and how much should protein structures be allowed to deviate from them? , 2007, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[8]  Ian W. Davis,et al.  Structure validation by Cα geometry: ϕ,ψ and Cβ deviation , 2003, Proteins.

[9]  Dale E Tronrud,et al.  A conformation-dependent stereochemical library improves crystallographic refinement even at atomic resolution. , 2011, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[10]  Robert Huber,et al.  Structure quality and target parameters , 2006 .

[11]  Randy J. Read,et al.  Graphical tools for macromolecular crystallography in PHENIX , 2012, Journal of applied crystallography.

[12]  Paul D Adams,et al.  Electronic Reprint Biological Crystallography Electronic Ligand Builder and Optimization Workbench (elbow ): a Tool for Ligand Coordinate and Restraint Generation Biological Crystallography Electronic Ligand Builder and Optimization Workbench (elbow): a Tool for Ligand Coordinate and Restraint Gener , 2022 .

[13]  D. Baker,et al.  Relaxation of backbone bond geometry improves protein energy landscape modeling , 2014, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[14]  J. Deisenhofer,et al.  Crystallographic refinement of the structure of bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor at l.5 Å resolution , 1975 .

[15]  R. Berisio,et al.  Interplay between Peptide Bond Geometrical Parameters in Nonglobular Structural Contexts , 2013, BioMed research international.

[16]  Structural parameters for proteins derived from the atomic resolution (1.09 A) structure of a designed variant of the ColE1 ROP protein. , 1998, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[17]  Gert Vriend,et al.  On the complexity of Engh and Huber refinement restraints: the angle τ as example , 2010, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[18]  R. Huber,et al.  Accurate Bond and Angle Parameters for X-ray Protein Structure Refinement , 1991 .

[19]  Nicholas Furnham,et al.  Model-building strategies for low-resolution X-ray crystallographic data , 2009, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[20]  Randy J Read,et al.  Automated structure solution with the PHENIX suite. , 2008, Methods in molecular biology.

[21]  Roger L. Lundblad,et al.  Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Fifth Edition , 2010 .

[22]  G. Sheldrick A short history of SHELX. , 2008, Acta crystallographica. Section A, Foundations of crystallography.

[23]  David C. Richardson,et al.  MOLPROBITY: structure validation and all-atom contact analysis for nucleic acids and their complexes , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[24]  K. D. Watenpaugh,et al.  Refinement of the model of a protein: rubredoxin at 1.5 Å resolution , 1973 .

[25]  Paul D. Adams,et al.  Use of knowledge-based restraints in phenix.refine to improve macromolecular refinement at low resolution , 2012, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[26]  Vincent B. Chen,et al.  Correspondence e-mail: , 2000 .

[27]  Peter B. Krenesky,et al.  Protein Geometry Database: a flexible engine to explore backbone conformations and their relationships to covalent geometry , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[28]  Randy J. Read,et al.  A New Generation of Crystallographic Validation Tools for the Protein Data Bank , 2011, Structure.

[29]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Nonplanar peptide bonds in proteins are common and conserved but not biased toward active sites , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Roland L Dunbrack,et al.  A forward-looking suggestion for resolving the stereochemical restraints debate: ideal geometry functions. , 2008, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[31]  Nathaniel Echols,et al.  The Phenix software for automated determination of macromolecular structures. , 2011, Methods.

[32]  L. Pauling,et al.  The structure of proteins; two hydrogen-bonded helical configurations of the polypeptide chain. , 1951, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  L. Schāfer,et al.  Predictions of protein backbone bond distances and angles from first principles , 1995 .

[34]  Zbigniew Dauter,et al.  Numerology versus reality: a voice in a recent dispute. , 2007, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[35]  A. Wlodawer,et al.  Proteins do not have strong spines after all. , 2009, Structure.

[36]  Randy J. Read,et al.  Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological , 2003 .

[37]  Randy J. Read,et al.  Application of DEN refinement and automated model building to a difficult case of molecular-replacement phasing: the structure of a putative succinyl-diaminopimelate desuccinylase from Corynebacterium glutamicum , 2012, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[38]  Dale E Tronrud,et al.  Using a conformation-dependent stereochemical library improves crystallographic refinement of proteins. , 2010, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[39]  Fei Long,et al.  REFMAC5 dictionary: organization of prior chemical knowledge and guidelines for its use. , 2004, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[40]  K. Dill,et al.  The flexibility in the proline ring couples to the protein backbone , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[41]  I. Tickle,et al.  Experimental determination of optimal root-mean-square deviations of macromolecular bond lengths and angles from their restrained ideal values. , 2007, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[42]  W. Hendrickson Stereochemically restrained refinement of macromolecular structures. , 1985, Methods in enzymology.

[43]  B. Matthews,et al.  A method of obtaining a stereochemically acceptable protein model which fits a set of atomic coordinates , 1976 .

[44]  J. Konnert,et al.  A restrained-parameter structure-factor least-squares refinement procedure for large asymmetric units , 1976 .

[45]  Full-matrix refinement of the protein crambin at 0.83 A and 130 K. , 1995, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[46]  N. W. Isaacs,et al.  A method for fitting satisfactory models to sets of atomic positions in protein structure refinements , 1976 .

[47]  P. Karplus Experimentally observed conformation‐dependent geometry and hidden strain in proteins , 1996, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[48]  H. Witte Tables of Interatomic Distances and Configuration in Molecules and Ions. , 1959 .

[49]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[50]  L. E. Sutton,et al.  Tables of interatomic distances and configuration in molecules and ions , 1958 .

[51]  Brian W. Matthews,et al.  An efficient general-purpose least-squares refinement program for macromolecular structures , 1987 .