The R‐factor gap in macromolecular crystallography: an untapped potential for insights on accurate structures

Abstract

In macromolecular crystallography, the agreement between observed and predicted structure factors (Rcryst and Rfree) is seldom better than 20%. This is much larger than the estimate of experimental error (Rmerge). The difference between Rcryst and Rmerge is the R-factor gap. There is no such gap in small-molecule crystallography, for which calculated structure factors are generally considered more accurate than the experimental measurements. Perhaps the true noise level of macromolecular data is higher than expected? Or is the gap caused by inaccurate phases that trap refined models in local minima? By generating simulated diffraction patterns using the program MLFSOM, and including every conceivable source of experimental error, we show that neither is the case. Processing our simulated data yielded values that were indistinguishable from those of real data for all crystallographic statistics except the final Rcryst and Rfree. These values decreased to 3.8% and 5.5% for simulated data, suggesting that the reason for high R-factors in macromolecular crystallography is neither experimental error nor phase bias, but rather an underlying inadequacy in the models used to explain our observations. The present inability to accurately represent the entire macromolecule with both its flexibility and its protein-solvent interface may be improved by synergies between small-angle X-ray scattering, computational chemistry and crystallography. The exciting implication of our finding is that macromolecular data contain substantial hidden and untapped potential to resolve ambiguities in the true nature of the nanoscale, a task that the second century of crystallography promises to fulfill.DatabaseCoordinates and structure factors for the real data have been submitted to the Protein Data Bank under accession 4tws.

Envisioning the dynamics and flexibility of Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 complex to decipher its roles in DNA replication and repair

“…Also, we know that water molecules are part of the active site and other concave surface features and that residue composition impact bound waters (Kuhn et al, 1992; 1995). An exciting recent observation is that our refined macromolecular crystal structure models are in general not limited by data noise or error but by our ability to properly model the water structure and model flexibility (Holton et al, 2014). We can expect that further advances in biophysical methods that define flexibility and bound water structures may allow more accurate and complete models of dynamic complexes, including MRN.…”

Assessing and maximizing data quality in macromolecular crystallography

“…While how to best use this information in guiding and validating refinements is not yet clear, it provides a welcome replacement for the practice of comparing refinement R-factors with data reduction R-factors (e.g. [12•]) that is not correct [5••]. …”

Robust Production, Crystallization, Structure Determination, and Analysis of [Fe–S] Proteins: Uncovering Control of Electron Shuttling and Gating in the Respiratory Metabolism of Molybdopterin Guanine Dinucleotide Enzymes

“…In considering these and other metalloenzyme results, it is important to recall the need for rigorous refinement of [Fe–S] clusters and for considering the coupled challenges from accurately modeling bound solvent and flexible regions. All existing crystal structures contain errors in refined models for flexible regions and bound solvent that greatly exceed the errors in the crystallographic data, so modeling and refining these aspects merit careful attention (Holton, Classen, Frankel, & Tainer, 2014). Going forward, the combination of X-ray crystallography with other methods such as X-ray scattering in solution may be key to defining the protein structure with flexibility and bound solvent (Rambo & Tainer, 2013a, 2013b).…”