New methods for automated NMR data analysis and protein structure determination [Elektronische Ressource] / von Dancea Felician

Informations

• Publié par: goethe_universitat_frankfurt_am_main
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2005
• Nombre de lectures: 28
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

New Methods for Automated NMR Data
Analysis and Protein Structure Determination
Dissertation
zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades
der Naturwissenschaften
vorgelegt beim Fachbereich
Chemische und Pharmazeutische Wissenschaften (FB 14)
der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit t
in Frankfurt am Main
von
Dancea Felician
aus Aiud, Rum nien
Frankfurt 2004
(DF1)
1vom Fachbereich Chemische und Pharmazeutische Wissenschaften (FB 14) der
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit t als Dissertation angenommen.
Dekan: Prof. Dr. Harald Schwalbe
Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Heinz R terjans
PD Dr. Ulrich G nther
Datum der Disputation: 10.03.2005
2Acknowledgements
In the rst place I wish to thank my scienti c supervisors Prof. Dr. Heinz R terjans
and PD Dr. Ulrich G nther for all their scienti c support and for giving me the chance
to pursuit this challenging work.
I would like to acknowledge the contributions of several people who have helped me
to carry out this work: Dr. Frank L hr for NMR experiments, PD Dr. Oliver Klimmek
for protein sample preparations, Dr. Hans Wienk for insightful discussions and
suggestions, Dr. Michael Nilges for help with ARIA-related computations, Dr. Yi-Jan
Lin for help with the Sud project and Nikola Trbovic for the Wavepca collaboration.
Special thanks to Prof. Dr. Volker D tsch for his kind support.
Many thanks to all former and present BPC members: Joana Kleinhaus, Dr.
Gary Yalloway, Mitch Maestre, Tanja Mittag, Lucia Muresanu, Alexander Koglin,
Veronica Noskova, Dr. Vladimir Rogov, PD Dr. Christian L cke, Dr. Stefania
Pfeiffer-Marek, Dr. Christian Wolf, Dr. Marco Betz, Bernd Weyrauch, Michael
Reese, Dr. Wesley McGinn-Straus, Horng Ou, Dr. Dirk Beilke, Dr. Ulrich Schieborr,
Dr. Helmut Hanssum, Birgit Sch fer, Juliana Winkler, Christina Fischer, Dr. Frank
Bernhard, Dr. Vicky Katsemi, Dr. Raed Aljazzar and Dr. Kaushik Sengupta, for the
excellent atmosphere in the working group. It has been a great place where ideas were
shared and generated. Special thanks to our secretary, Ms. Sigrid Fachinger, for her
great help with the of cial paper work.
I would like to acknowledge the nancial support from Deutsche Forschungsge-
meinschaft (SFB472) and from the Center of Biomolecular Magnetic Resonance
(BMRZ) at J. W. Goethe-University of Frankfurt.
3Abbreviations
NMR nuclear magnetic resonace
NOE nuclear Overhauser effect
NOESY nuclear Ov enhancement and exchange spectroscopy
TROSY transverse relaxation spectroscopy
HSQC heteronuclear single quantum coherence
ADR ambiguous distance restraints
RDC residual dipolar coupling
Sud polysul de-sulfur transferase (formerly Sulphide Dehydrogenase) protein
Str sulfur transferase protein
hsp90 heat shock protein 90
RMSD root mean squared deviation
rms root mean
1D, 2D, 3D one-, two-, three-dimensional
DWT discrete wavelet transform
MRA multiresolution analysis
PCA principal component analysis
pci i
SVD singular value decomposition
SA-MD simulated annealing with molecular dynamics
SA-TAD with torsion angle
ARIA ambiguous restraints for iterative assignment
CYANA combined assignment and dynamics algorithm for NMR applications
CNS crystallography and NMR system
CPU central processing unit
Units
Da Dalton
Hz Hertz
K Kelvin
-1M moll
l liter
s second
T Tesla
cal gram calorie
4Contents
1 Introduction 8
2 Theoretical concepts 15
2.1 NMR spectroscopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.1 Nuclei in magnetic elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.2 Density matrix formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.3 Product operator formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2 NMR data for protein structure calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.1 Nuclear Overhauser effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.2 Residual dipolar couplings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.3 Scalar couplings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.4 Hydrogen bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.5 Chemical shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3 Structure calculation algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.1 Simulated annealing with molecular dynamics . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.2 Iterative NOE assignment and structure calculation . . . . . . 27
2.4 Numerical analysis algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.4.1 Multiresolution analysis and wavelet series expansion . . . . 34
2.4.2 Discrete wavelet transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5Contents
2.4.3 Wavelet de-noising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.4.4 Translation invariant wavelet transform . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4.5 Principal component analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3 Experimental procedures 46
3.1 NMR sample preparation for Sud protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2 NMR sample for Sud-Str complex . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3 NMR experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4 Data analysis methods 51
4.1 Structural data preparation for Sud protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.2 Sud protein structure calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.3 Consistency check of the NOESY peak lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.4 Wavelet de-noising of the multidimensional NMR spectra . . . . . . 57
4.5 Automated peak picking and peak integration of the multidimensional
NMR spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.6 NMR chemical shift mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.7 Multivariate analysis of the NMR screening data . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5 Results and Discussion 67
5.1 Sud protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.1.1 Solution structure of Sud protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.1.2 Chemical shift mapping of the polysul de binding . . . . . . 75
5.1.3 Chemical shift mapping of the Sud-Str interaction . . . . . . . 79
5.2 Automated protein structure determination using wavelet de-noised
NOESY spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.2.1 Optimal wavelet based de-noising scheme . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.2.2 NOESY peak list validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6Contents
5.2.3 Iterative NOE assignment and structure calculations using
wavelet de-noised spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.3 Wavelet de-noising for NMR screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6 Zusammenfassung 98
7 CURRICULUM VITAE 104
71 Introduction
Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is a well established method for the
determination of solution structures of biological macromolecules. NMR plays an im-
portant role in structural genomics which is driven by the need to supplement protein
sequences by structural and functional information (Staunton et al., 2003). The ef -
ciency of protein NMR structure determination has recently improved because many of
the time-consuming interactive steps carried out by a spectroscopist during the process
of spectral analysis can now be accomplished by automated, computational approaches
(Moseley and Montelione, 1999).
Recent advances in automation of protein NMR structure determination were the
product of a series of computational algorithms which link the iterative assignment
of NOESY spectra with structure calculations (Mumenthaler and Braun, 1995; Mu-
menthaler et al., 1997; Nilges et al., 1997; Montelione et al., 2000; Savarin et al.,
2001; Herrmann et al., 2002a). While new types of constraints such as residual dipo-
lar couplings (Tjandra and Bax, 1997), orientational information from heteronuclear
relaxation in anisotropically tumbling molecules (Tjandra et al., 1997a), or restraints
obtained in the presence of paramagnetic centers in a protein (Banci et al., 1997) have
facilitated protein structure determination, distance information from NOESY spectra
remains an important basis for NMR structure elucidation. Peak picking in NOESY
spectra has been a time consuming process, mainly due to spectral overlap and be-
cause NOESY spectra are often obscured by noise and spectral artifacts. Therefore,
automation of the peak picking process requires reliable lters to select the relevant
81 Introduction
signals.
An initial implementation of a program which combines NOESY peak picking with
automated structure determination by using intermediate protein structures as a guide
for the interpretation of the NOESY spectra has recently been described (Herrmann
et al., 2002b). In this thesis a different approach to automated peak picking, employ-
ing wavelet transforms for spectral de-noising, was evaluated. The core of this new
procedure is the generation of incremental peak lists by applying different wavelet
de-noising schemes with complementary features. In the rst stage of iterative NOE
assignment and structure calculations, a peak list containing only the most reliable
peaks is used, while a wavelet de-noising scheme with modest noise suppression and
large number of signals is employed in the later stages, when the previously deter-
mined structural models can be utilized to lter the NOESY peak list. In addition, the
peak list generated by au