Applying an Empirical Hydropathic Forcefield in Refinement May Improve Low-Resolution Protein X-Ray Crystal Structures

Background The quality of X-ray crystallographic models for biomacromolecules refined from data obtained at high-resolution is assured by the data itself. However, at low-resolution, >3.0 Å, additional information is supplied by a forcefield coupled with an associated refinement protocol. These resulting structures are often of lower quality and thus unsuitable for downstream activities like structure-based drug discovery. Methodology An X-ray crystallography refinement protocol that enhances standard methodology by incorporating energy terms from the HINT (Hydropathic INTeractions) empirical forcefield is described. This protocol was tested by refining synthetic low-resolution structural data derived from 25 diverse high-resolution structures, and referencing the resulting models to these structures. The models were also evaluated with global structural quality metrics, e.g., Ramachandran score and MolProbity clashscore. Three additional structures, for which only low-resolution data are available, were also re-refined with this methodology. Results The enhanced refinement protocol is most beneficial for reflection data at resolutions of 3.0 Å or worse. At the low-resolution limit, ≥4.0 Å, the new protocol generated models with Cα positions that have RMSDs that are 0.18 Å more similar to the reference high-resolution structure, Ramachandran scores improved by 13%, and clashscores improved by 51%, all in comparison to models generated with the standard refinement protocol. The hydropathic forcefield terms are at least as effective as Coulombic electrostatic terms in maintaining polar interaction networks, and significantly more effective in maintaining hydrophobic networks, as synthetic resolution is decremented. Even at resolutions ≥4.0 Å, these latter networks are generally native-like, as measured with a hydropathic interactions scoring tool.

[1]  Pietro Cozzini,et al.  Computational titration analysis of a multiprotic HIV-1 protease-ligand complex. , 2004, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[2]  G. Murshudov,et al.  Refinement of macromolecular structures by the maximum-likelihood method. , 1997, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[3]  D. Covell,et al.  Mapping the binding site of colchicinoids on beta -tubulin. 2-Chloroacetyl-2-demethylthiocolchicine covalently reacts predominantly with cysteine 239 and secondarily with cysteine 354. , 2000, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[4]  Qing Zhang,et al.  The RCSB Protein Data Bank: a redesigned query system and relational database based on the mmCIF schema , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  O. Carugo,et al.  How many water molecules can be detected by protein crystallography? , 1999, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[6]  A. Brünger Free R value: a novel statistical quantity for assessing the accuracy of crystal structures , 1992, Nature.

[7]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  Target flexibility: an emerging consideration in drug discovery and design. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  A. Brunger Free R value: a novel statistical quantity for assessing the accuracy of crystal structures. , 1992 .

[9]  G N Murshudov,et al.  Use of TLS parameters to model anisotropic displacements in macromolecular refinement. , 2001, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[10]  M. Fornabaio,et al.  Docking and hydropathic scoring of polysubstituted pyrrole compounds with antitubulin activity. , 2008, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[11]  Michael Levitt,et al.  Super-resolution biomolecular crystallography with low-resolution data , 2010, Nature.

[12]  Anna Marabotti,et al.  Energy‐based prediction of amino acid‐nucleotide base recognition , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[13]  D. Abraham,et al.  Hydrophobicity: is LogP(o/w) more than the sum of its parts? , 2000, European journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  C. Hansch,et al.  Linear free-energy relationship between partition coefficients and the aqueous solubility of organic liquids , 1968 .

[15]  A. Lavie,et al.  Structure of the conserved cytoplasmic C-terminal domain of occludin: identification of the ZO-1 binding surface. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  Thomas Szyperski,et al.  Protein NMR spectroscopy in structural genomics , 2000, Nature Structural Biology.

[17]  Patrick A. Curmi,et al.  Insight into tubulin regulation from a complex with colchicine and a stathmin-like domain , 2004, Nature.

[18]  Collaborative Computational,et al.  The CCP4 suite: programs for protein crystallography. , 1994, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

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

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

[21]  N. Kunishima,et al.  Structural views of the ligand-binding cores of a metabotropic glutamate receptor complexed with an antagonist and both glutamate and Gd3+ , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  M. DePristo,et al.  Heterogeneity and inaccuracy in protein structures solved by X-ray crystallography. , 2004, Structure.

[23]  M. A. Wilson,et al.  The 1.0 A crystal structure of Ca(2+)-bound calmodulin: an analysis of disorder and implications for functionally relevant plasticity. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  G E Kellogg,et al.  Hydropathic analysis of the non-covalent interactions between molecular subunits of structurally characterized hemoglobins. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[25]  Anna Marabotti,et al.  Simple, intuitive calculations of free energy of binding for protein-ligand complexes. 1. Models without explicit constrained water. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[26]  L. Polito,et al.  The 1.4 Å structure of dianthin 30 indicates a role of surface potential at the active site of type 1 ribosome inactivating proteins , 2005 .

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

[28]  Pietro Cozzini,et al.  Mapping the energetics of water-protein and water-ligand interactions with the "natural" HINT forcefield: predictive tools for characterizing the roles of water in biomolecules. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  G. N. Ramachandran,et al.  Stereochemistry of polypeptide chain configurations. , 1963, Journal of molecular biology.

[30]  Glen E. Kellogg,et al.  Hydrophobicity: is LogPo/w more than the sum of its parts? , 2000 .

[31]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. , 1998, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[32]  D. Cruickshank,et al.  Remarks about protein structure precision. , 1999, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[33]  R J Read,et al.  Crystallography & NMR system: A new software suite for macromolecular structure determination. , 1998, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[34]  Özkan Yildiz,et al.  Structural and Functional Analyses of PAS Domain Interactions of the Clock Proteins Drosophila PERIOD and Mouse PERIOD2 , 2009, PLoS biology.

[35]  D. Zaharevitz,et al.  A common pharmacophore for a diverse set of colchicine site inhibitors using a structure-based approach. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  M. Levitt,et al.  Aromatic Rings Act as Hydrogen Bond Acceptors , 2022 .