Residue Level Inverse Kinematics of Peptide Chains in the Presence of Observation Inaccuracies and Bond Length Changes

2006 ◽  
Vol 129 (3) ◽  
pp. 312-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raghavendran Subramanian ◽  
Kazem Kazerounian

The process of calculating the dihedral angles of a peptide chain from atom coordinates in the chain is called residue level inverse kinematics. The uncertainties and experimental observation inaccuracies in the atoms’ coordinates handicap this otherwise simple and straightforward process. In this paper, we present and analyze three new efficient methodologies to find all the dihedral angles of a peptide chain for a given conformation. Comparison of these results with the dihedral angle values reported in the protein data bank (PDB) indicates significant improvements. While these improvements benefit most modeling methods in protein analysis, it is in particular, very significant in homology modeling where the dihedral angles are the generalized coordinates (structural variables). The first method presented here fits a best plane through five atoms of each peptide unit. The angle between the successive planes is defined as the dihedral angle. The second method is based on the zero-position analysis method. Successive links in this method rotate by the dihedral angles so as to minimize the structural error between respective atoms in the model conformation with given atoms’ coordinates. Dihedral angle final values correspond to the minimum structural error configuration. In this method, singular value decomposition technique is used to best fit the atoms in the two conformations. The third method is a variant of the second method. In this instead of rotating all the links successively only three links are matched each time to extract the dihedral angle of the middle link. By doing so, the error accumulation on the successive links is reduced. This paper focuses on the Euclidean norm as the measure of merit (structural error) to compare different methods with the PDB. This Euclidean norm is further, minimized by optimizing the geometrical features of the peptide plane.

Author(s):  
Raghavendran Subramanian ◽  
Kazem Kazerounian

Dihedral angles as generalized coordinates define the geometric conformation of a peptide chain. Given the exact coordinates of the atoms, it is possible to rigorously calculate the dihedral angles. We will refer to this calculation process as the residue level inverse kinematics of peptide chains. However uncertainties and experimental observation inaccuracies in the atoms’ coordinates handicap this otherwise simple and straightforward process. In this paper, we present three new efficient methodologies to find all the dihedral angles of a peptide chain for a given conformation. Comparison of these results with the dihedral angle values reported in the PDB (Protein Data Bank) indicates significant improvements. While these improvements benefit most modeling methods in protein analysis, it is in particular, very significant in homology modeling where the dihedral angles are the structural variables. The first method presented here fits a best plane through five atoms of each peptide unit. The angle between the successive planes is defined as the dihedral angle. The second method is based on the Zero-Position analysis method. Successive links in this method rotate by the dihedral angles so as to minimize the structural error between respective atoms in the model conformation with given atoms’ coordinates. Dihedral angle final values correspond to the minimum structural error configuration. In this method, singular value decomposition (SVD) technique is used to best fit the atoms in the two conformations. The third method is a variant of the second method. In this instead of rotating all the links successively only three links are matched each time to extract the dihedral angle of the middle link. By doing so, the error accumulation on the successive links is reduced. This paper focuses on the Euclidean norm as the measure of merit (structural error) to compare different methods with the Protein Data Bank (PDB). This Euclidean norm is further, minimized by optimizing the geometrical features of the peptide plane.


Author(s):  
Raghavendran Subramanian ◽  
Kazem Kazerounian

Pauling, Corey and Branson in their seminal paper in 1951 reported numerical values for the bond lengths and bond angles for a peptide unit in proteins. These values became the standard model for several decades after that. This classic peptide model was either confirmed or improved upon by other researchers over the years, by using more advanced X-Ray diffraction equipments. In this paper, we have made an attempt to calibrate the values of these bond lengths and bond angles based on a systematic and deterministic approach applied to a collection of proteins defined structurally in the Protein Data Bank (PDB). Our method is based on the assumption that a peptide chain is a serial chain of identical rigid bodies connected by revolute joints (i.e. dihedral angles). The proposed procedure first computes the best estimate for the dihedral angles in the presence of inaccuracies in the atoms’ coordinates data. Then these values are used to find the conformation of the peptide chain using the calibrated model of the peptide unit. Through an optimization process, the structural error (RMSD of all atoms) between the resultant conformation and the PDB data is minimized to yield the best values for the bond length and bond angles in the calibrated peptide unit. Our numerical experiments indicate that by making small changes in the Pauling-Corey peptide model parameters (0.15% to 8.7%) the structural error is reduced significantly (3.0% to 57.4%). The optimum values for the bond angles and bond lengths are as follow: Bond Lengths: N-C(A): 1.4721Å, C(A)-C: 1.6167Å, C-N: 1.2047Å, C=O: 1.1913Å and N-H: 0.9621Å. Bond Bending Angles: N-C(A)-C: 109.6823°, C(A)-C=0: 119.518°, C(A)-C-N: 114.5553°, O=C-N: 125.9233°, C-N-H: 123.5155°, C-N-C(A): 121.5756°, C(A)-N-H: 114.901°. Peptide bond torsion angle: ω: 179.4432°.


2012 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kohei Johmoto ◽  
Takashi Ishida ◽  
Akiko Sekine ◽  
Hidehiro Uekusa ◽  
Yuji Ohashi

The crystal structures of the salicylideneaniline derivatives N-salicylidene-4-tert-butyl-aniline (1), N-3,5-di-tert-butyl-salicylidene-3-methoxyaniline (2), N-3,5-di-tert-butyl-salicylidene-3-bromoaniline (3), N-3,5-di-tert-butyl-salicylidene-3-chloroaniline (4), N-3,5-di-tert-butyl-salicylidene-4-bromoaniline (5), N-3,5-di-tert-butyl-salicylidene-aniline (6), N-3,5-di-tert-butyl-salicylidene-4-carboxyaniline (7) and N-salicylidene-2-chloroaniline (8) were analyzed by X-ray diffraction analysis at ambient temperature to investigate the relationship between their photochromic properties and molecular structures. A clear correlation between photochromism and the dihedral angle of the two benzene rings in the salicylideneaniline derivatives was observed. Crystals with dihedral angles less than 20° were non-photochromic, whereas those with dihedral angles greater than 30° were photochromic. Crystals with dihedral angles between 20 and 30° could be either photochromic or non-photochromic. Inhibition of the pedal motion by intra- or intermolecular steric hindrance, however, can result in non-photochromic behaviour even if the dihedral angle is larger than 30°.


Author(s):  
Md. Lutfor Rahman ◽  
Ajaykumar D. Kulkarni ◽  
Mashitah Mohd. Yusoff ◽  
Huey Chong Kwong ◽  
Ching Kheng Quah

The title indolin-2-one compound, C28H23FN4O·C2H6O, crystallizes as a 1:1 ethanol solvate. The ethanol molecule is disordered over two positions with refined site occupancies of 0.560 (14) and 0.440 (14). The pyrazole ring makes dihedral angles of 84.16 (10) and 85.33 (9)° with the indolin-2-one and indole rings, respectively, whereas the dihedral angle between indolin-2-one and indole rings is 57.30 (7)°. In the crystal, the components are linked by N—H...O and O—H...O hydrogen bonds, forming an inversion molecule–solvate 2:2 dimer withR44(12) ring motifs. The crystal structure is consolidated by π–π interaction between pairs of inversion-related indolin-2-one rings [interplanar spacing = 3.599 (2) Å].


IUCrData ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gamal A. El-Hiti ◽  
Bakr F. Abdel-Wahab ◽  
Rizk E. Khidre ◽  
Mohamed S. Mostafa ◽  
Amany S. Hegazy ◽  
...  

In the title compound, C24H22N4O2S, the dihedral angle between the triazole and thiophene rings is 4.83 (14)°. The dihedral angles between the triazole and tolyl rings and between the thiophene and phenyl rings are 48.42 (16) and 9.23 (13)°, respectively. An intramolecular N—H...O hydrogen bond closes anS(6) loop. In the crystal, molecules are stacked parallel to thea-axis direction with weak π–π interactions between adjacent thiophenyl and triazolyl groups within the stack [centroid–centroid separation = 3.9811 (16) Å].


IUCrData ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanwen Sun ◽  
Haolei Wu ◽  
Changheng Wei ◽  
Mei Gao ◽  
Zeyi Shen ◽  
...  

In the title compound, C17H16ClN5O3, the phenyl and the oxadiazole rings are almost coplanar, subtending a dihedral angle of 4.34 (19)°. These rings lie almost normal to the pyridazine ring, making dihedral angles of 87.35 (16) and 89.06 (15)°, respectively. The morpholine ring has the usual chair conformation and its mean plane is inclined to the pyridazine ring by 39.45 (17)°. There is a short intramolecular C—H...Cl contact present. In the crystal, molecules are linked by bifurcated C—(H,H)...O hydrogen bonds and a C—H...N hydrogen bond, forming layers parallel to the ab plane.


2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (8) ◽  
pp. 1209-1212
Author(s):  
H. Surya Prakash Rao ◽  
Ramalingam Gunasundari ◽  
Jayaraman Muthukumaran

In the title compound, C24H23N3O3S, the dihedral angle between the fused pyrazole and pyridine rings is 1.76 (7)°. The benzene and methoxy phenyl rings make dihedral angles of 44.8 (5) and 63.86 (5)°, respectively, with the pyrazolo[3,4-b] pyridine moiety. An intramolecular short S...O contact [3.215 (2) Å] is observed. The crystal packing features C—H...π interactions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 71 (5) ◽  
pp. o270-o271 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Mohana ◽  
M. Divya Bharathi ◽  
G. Ahila ◽  
G. Chakkaravarthi ◽  
G. Anbalagan

In the anion of the title hydrated molecular salt, C9H8N+·C8H4NO6−·H2O, the protonated carboxyl and nitro groups makes dihedral angles of 27.56 (5) and 6.86 (8)°, respectively, with the attached benzene ring, whereas the deprotonated carboxy group is almost orthogonal to it with a dihedral angle of 80.21 (1)°. In the crystal, the components are linked by O—H...O and N—H...O hydrogen bonds, generating [001] chains. The packing is consolidated by weak C—H...N and C—H...O interactions as well as aromatic π–π stacking [centroid-to-centroid distances: 3.7023 (8) & 3.6590 (9)Å] interactions, resulting in a three-dimensional network.


1985 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 1417 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Becker ◽  
VA Patrick ◽  
BW Skelton ◽  
AH White

The crystal structures of racemic bis [α-(9-anthryl)] ether and its meso form have been determined by single-crystal X-ray diffraction methods at 295 K, being refined by least squares to residuals of 0.053 and 0.041 for 1868 and 3568 independent 'observed' reflections respectively. Crystals of the racemate are orthorhombic, Pcab, a 23.07(1), b 19.85(2), c 10.241(8) Ǻ, Z 8. Crystals of the meso form are triclinic, Pī , a 19.032(12), b 14.207(11), c 9.451(8) Ǻ, α 79.46(6), β 89.68(6), γ 68.97(5)°, Z 4. In the racemate , the dihedral angle between the methyl groups along the ether bonds is 12°, and the short axes of the anthracene moieties lie at an angle of about 120°. In the meso compound, for the two molecules the dihedral angles between the methyl groups along the ether bonds are 90 and 93°, the angle between the two anthracene moieties is 90°, and the interplanar angles between the partly overlapping aromatic systems are 46 and 43°.


2012 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. o1272-o1272
Author(s):  
De-Cai Wang ◽  
Yu-Jing Wang ◽  
Jun-Song Song ◽  
Ping Wei ◽  
Ping-Kai Ou-yang

In the title compound, C24H30N6O5, the cyclohexyl ring adopts a chair conformation, while the remainder of the molecule adopts a U-shape. The dihedral angles between the pyridine ring and the pendant pyrimidine rings are 69.04 (12) and 75.99 (9)°. The two pyrimidine rings, however, are nearly parallel to one another, with a dihedral angle of 8.56 (15)° between them. They are also involved in an intramolecular π–π stacking interaction with a distance of 3.6627 (18) Å between the ring centroids. In the crystal, C—H...O contacts link the molecules into chains along thebaxis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document