1ovh: Difference between revisions

From Proteopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:1ovh.jpg|left|200px]]<br /><applet load="1ovh" size="350" color="white" frame="true" align="right" spinBox="true"
caption="1ovh, resolution 1.95&Aring;" />
'''T4 Lysozyme Cavity Mutant L99A/M102Q Bound With 2-Chloro-6-Methyl-Aniline'''<br />


==Overview==
==T4 Lysozyme Cavity Mutant L99A/M102Q Bound With 2-Chloro-6-Methyl-Aniline==
<StructureSection load='1ovh' size='340' side='right'caption='[[1ovh]], [[Resolution|resolution]] 1.95&Aring;' scene=''>
== Structural highlights ==
<table><tr><td colspan='2'>[[1ovh]] is a 1 chain structure with sequence from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_virus_T4 Escherichia virus T4]. Full crystallographic information is available from [http://oca.weizmann.ac.il/oca-bin/ocashort?id=1OVH OCA]. For a <b>guided tour on the structure components</b> use [https://proteopedia.org/fgij/fg.htm?mol=1OVH FirstGlance]. <br>
</td></tr><tr id='method'><td class="sblockLbl"><b>[[Empirical_models|Method:]]</b></td><td class="sblockDat" id="methodDat">X-ray diffraction, [[Resolution|Resolution]] 1.95&#8491;</td></tr>
<tr id='ligand'><td class="sblockLbl"><b>[[Ligand|Ligands:]]</b></td><td class="sblockDat" id="ligandDat"><scene name='pdbligand=2CM:2-CHLORO-6-METHYL-ANILINE'>2CM</scene>, <scene name='pdbligand=BME:BETA-MERCAPTOETHANOL'>BME</scene>, <scene name='pdbligand=CL:CHLORIDE+ION'>CL</scene></td></tr>
<tr id='resources'><td class="sblockLbl"><b>Resources:</b></td><td class="sblockDat"><span class='plainlinks'>[https://proteopedia.org/fgij/fg.htm?mol=1ovh FirstGlance], [http://oca.weizmann.ac.il/oca-bin/ocaids?id=1ovh OCA], [https://pdbe.org/1ovh PDBe], [https://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore.do?structureId=1ovh RCSB], [https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbsum/1ovh PDBsum], [https://prosat.h-its.org/prosat/prosatexe?pdbcode=1ovh ProSAT]</span></td></tr>
</table>
== Function ==
[https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/ENLYS_BPT4 ENLYS_BPT4] Endolysin with lysozyme activity that degrades host peptidoglycans and participates with the holin and spanin proteins in the sequential events which lead to the programmed host cell lysis releasing the mature viral particles. Once the holin has permeabilized the host cell membrane, the endolysin can reach the periplasm and break down the peptidoglycan layer.<ref>PMID:22389108</ref>
== Evolutionary Conservation ==
[[Image:Consurf_key_small.gif|200px|right]]
Check<jmol>
  <jmolCheckbox>
    <scriptWhenChecked>; select protein; define ~consurf_to_do selected; consurf_initial_scene = true; script "/wiki/ConSurf/ov/1ovh_consurf.spt"</scriptWhenChecked>
    <scriptWhenUnchecked>script /wiki/extensions/Proteopedia/spt/initialview01.spt</scriptWhenUnchecked>
    <text>to colour the structure by Evolutionary Conservation</text>
  </jmolCheckbox>
</jmol>, as determined by [http://consurfdb.tau.ac.il/ ConSurfDB]. You may read the [[Conservation%2C_Evolutionary|explanation]] of the method and the full data available from [http://bental.tau.ac.il/new_ConSurfDB/main_output.php?pdb_ID=1ovh ConSurf].
<div style="clear:both"></div>
<div style="background-color:#fffaf0;">
== Publication Abstract from PubMed ==
Sampling receptor flexibility is challenging for database docking. We consider a method that treats multiple flexible regions of the binding site independently, recombining them to generate different discrete conformations. This algorithm scales linearly rather than exponentially with the receptor's degrees of freedom. The method was first evaluated for its ability to identify known ligands of a hydrophobic cavity mutant of T4 lysozyme (L99A). Some 200000 molecules of the Available Chemical Directory (ACD) were docked against an ensemble of cavity conformations. Surprisingly, the enrichment of known ligands from among a much larger number of decoys in the ACD was worse than simply docking to the apo conformation alone. Large decoys, accommodated in the larger cavity conformations sampled in the ensemble, were ranked better than known small ligands. The calculation was redone with an energy correction term that considered the cost of forming the larger cavity conformations. Enrichment improved, as did the balance between high-ranking large and small ligands. In a second retrospective test, the ACD was docked against a conformational ensemble of thymidylate synthase. Compared to docking against individual enzyme conformations, the flexible receptor docking approach improved enrichment of known ligands. Including a receptor conformational energy weighting term improved enrichment further. To test the method prospectively, the ACD database was docked against another cavity mutant of lysozyme (L99A/M102Q). A total of 18 new compounds predicted to bind this polar cavity and to change its conformation were tested experimentally; 14 were found to bind. The bound structures for seven ligands were determined by X-ray crystallography. The predicted geometries of these ligands all corresponded to the observed geometries to within 0.7A RMSD or better. Significant conformational changes of the cavity were observed in all seven complexes. In five structures, part of the observed accommodations were correctly predicted; in two structures, the receptor conformational changes were unanticipated and thus never sampled. These results suggest that although sampling receptor flexibility can lead to novel ligands that would have been missed when docking a rigid structure, it is also important to consider receptor conformational energy.
Sampling receptor flexibility is challenging for database docking. We consider a method that treats multiple flexible regions of the binding site independently, recombining them to generate different discrete conformations. This algorithm scales linearly rather than exponentially with the receptor's degrees of freedom. The method was first evaluated for its ability to identify known ligands of a hydrophobic cavity mutant of T4 lysozyme (L99A). Some 200000 molecules of the Available Chemical Directory (ACD) were docked against an ensemble of cavity conformations. Surprisingly, the enrichment of known ligands from among a much larger number of decoys in the ACD was worse than simply docking to the apo conformation alone. Large decoys, accommodated in the larger cavity conformations sampled in the ensemble, were ranked better than known small ligands. The calculation was redone with an energy correction term that considered the cost of forming the larger cavity conformations. Enrichment improved, as did the balance between high-ranking large and small ligands. In a second retrospective test, the ACD was docked against a conformational ensemble of thymidylate synthase. Compared to docking against individual enzyme conformations, the flexible receptor docking approach improved enrichment of known ligands. Including a receptor conformational energy weighting term improved enrichment further. To test the method prospectively, the ACD database was docked against another cavity mutant of lysozyme (L99A/M102Q). A total of 18 new compounds predicted to bind this polar cavity and to change its conformation were tested experimentally; 14 were found to bind. The bound structures for seven ligands were determined by X-ray crystallography. The predicted geometries of these ligands all corresponded to the observed geometries to within 0.7A RMSD or better. Significant conformational changes of the cavity were observed in all seven complexes. In five structures, part of the observed accommodations were correctly predicted; in two structures, the receptor conformational changes were unanticipated and thus never sampled. These results suggest that although sampling receptor flexibility can lead to novel ligands that would have been missed when docking a rigid structure, it is also important to consider receptor conformational energy.


==About this Structure==
Testing a flexible-receptor docking algorithm in a model binding site.,Wei BQ, Weaver LH, Ferrari AM, Matthews BW, Shoichet BK J Mol Biol. 2004 Apr 9;337(5):1161-82. PMID:15046985<ref>PMID:15046985</ref>
1OVH is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_protein Single protein] structure of sequence from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage_t4 Bacteriophage t4] with <scene name='pdbligand=CL:'>CL</scene>, <scene name='pdbligand=BME:'>BME</scene> and <scene name='pdbligand=2CM:'>2CM</scene> as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ligands ligands]. Active as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysozyme Lysozyme], with EC number [http://www.brenda-enzymes.info/php/result_flat.php4?ecno=3.2.1.17 3.2.1.17] Full crystallographic information is available from [http://oca.weizmann.ac.il/oca-bin/ocashort?id=1OVH OCA].


==Reference==
From MEDLINE&reg;/PubMed&reg;, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.<br>
Testing a flexible-receptor docking algorithm in a model binding site., Wei BQ, Weaver LH, Ferrari AM, Matthews BW, Shoichet BK, J Mol Biol. 2004 Apr 9;337(5):1161-82. PMID:[http://ispc.weizmann.ac.il//pmbin/getpm?pmid=15046985 15046985]
</div>
[[Category: Bacteriophage t4]]
<div class="pdbe-citations 1ovh" style="background-color:#fffaf0;"></div>
[[Category: Lysozyme]]
[[Category: Single protein]]
[[Category: Baase, W A.]]
[[Category: Matthews, B W.]]
[[Category: Shoichet, B K.]]
[[Category: Weaver, L H.]]
[[Category: Wei, B Q.]]
[[Category: 2CM]]
[[Category: BME]]
[[Category: CL]]
[[Category: bacteriolytic enzyme]]
[[Category: glycosidase]]


''Page seeded by [http://oca.weizmann.ac.il/oca OCA ] on Thu Feb 21 14:22:03 2008''
==See Also==
*[[Lysozyme 3D structures|Lysozyme 3D structures]]
== References ==
<references/>
__TOC__
</StructureSection>
[[Category: Escherichia virus T4]]
[[Category: Large Structures]]
[[Category: Baase WA]]
[[Category: Matthews BW]]
[[Category: Shoichet BK]]
[[Category: Weaver LH]]
[[Category: Wei BQ]]

Latest revision as of 12:33, 16 August 2023

T4 Lysozyme Cavity Mutant L99A/M102Q Bound With 2-Chloro-6-Methyl-AnilineT4 Lysozyme Cavity Mutant L99A/M102Q Bound With 2-Chloro-6-Methyl-Aniline

Structural highlights

1ovh is a 1 chain structure with sequence from Escherichia virus T4. Full crystallographic information is available from OCA. For a guided tour on the structure components use FirstGlance.
Method:X-ray diffraction, Resolution 1.95Å
Ligands:, ,
Resources:FirstGlance, OCA, PDBe, RCSB, PDBsum, ProSAT

Function

ENLYS_BPT4 Endolysin with lysozyme activity that degrades host peptidoglycans and participates with the holin and spanin proteins in the sequential events which lead to the programmed host cell lysis releasing the mature viral particles. Once the holin has permeabilized the host cell membrane, the endolysin can reach the periplasm and break down the peptidoglycan layer.[1]

Evolutionary Conservation

Check, as determined by ConSurfDB. You may read the explanation of the method and the full data available from ConSurf.

Publication Abstract from PubMed

Sampling receptor flexibility is challenging for database docking. We consider a method that treats multiple flexible regions of the binding site independently, recombining them to generate different discrete conformations. This algorithm scales linearly rather than exponentially with the receptor's degrees of freedom. The method was first evaluated for its ability to identify known ligands of a hydrophobic cavity mutant of T4 lysozyme (L99A). Some 200000 molecules of the Available Chemical Directory (ACD) were docked against an ensemble of cavity conformations. Surprisingly, the enrichment of known ligands from among a much larger number of decoys in the ACD was worse than simply docking to the apo conformation alone. Large decoys, accommodated in the larger cavity conformations sampled in the ensemble, were ranked better than known small ligands. The calculation was redone with an energy correction term that considered the cost of forming the larger cavity conformations. Enrichment improved, as did the balance between high-ranking large and small ligands. In a second retrospective test, the ACD was docked against a conformational ensemble of thymidylate synthase. Compared to docking against individual enzyme conformations, the flexible receptor docking approach improved enrichment of known ligands. Including a receptor conformational energy weighting term improved enrichment further. To test the method prospectively, the ACD database was docked against another cavity mutant of lysozyme (L99A/M102Q). A total of 18 new compounds predicted to bind this polar cavity and to change its conformation were tested experimentally; 14 were found to bind. The bound structures for seven ligands were determined by X-ray crystallography. The predicted geometries of these ligands all corresponded to the observed geometries to within 0.7A RMSD or better. Significant conformational changes of the cavity were observed in all seven complexes. In five structures, part of the observed accommodations were correctly predicted; in two structures, the receptor conformational changes were unanticipated and thus never sampled. These results suggest that although sampling receptor flexibility can lead to novel ligands that would have been missed when docking a rigid structure, it is also important to consider receptor conformational energy.

Testing a flexible-receptor docking algorithm in a model binding site.,Wei BQ, Weaver LH, Ferrari AM, Matthews BW, Shoichet BK J Mol Biol. 2004 Apr 9;337(5):1161-82. PMID:15046985[2]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

See Also

References

  1. Moussa SH, Kuznetsov V, Tran TA, Sacchettini JC, Young R. Protein determinants of phage T4 lysis inhibition. Protein Sci. 2012 Apr;21(4):571-82. doi: 10.1002/pro.2042. Epub 2012 Mar 2. PMID:22389108 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pro.2042
  2. Wei BQ, Weaver LH, Ferrari AM, Matthews BW, Shoichet BK. Testing a flexible-receptor docking algorithm in a model binding site. J Mol Biol. 2004 Apr 9;337(5):1161-82. PMID:15046985 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2004.02.015

1ovh, resolution 1.95Å

Drag the structure with the mouse to rotate

Proteopedia Page Contributors and Editors (what is this?)Proteopedia Page Contributors and Editors (what is this?)

OCA