1994
DOI: 10.1006/jmrb.1994.1127
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Test of the Model-Free Formulas. Effects of Anisotropic Rotational Diffusion and Dimerization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
230
1

Year Published

1996
1996
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 201 publications
(239 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
8
230
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Having both proteins almost equal in mass, the formation of a 1:1 adduct would cause doubling of the molecular mass of the species observed, which implies a doubling of the tumbling correlation time. Anisotropic tumbling of the complex in solution can yield up to an additional 15% increase in this correlation time [55]. In our case, the observed values of s m are sizably larger, indicating the presence of an equilibrium involving adducts of mass larger than the double of each protein.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 45%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Having both proteins almost equal in mass, the formation of a 1:1 adduct would cause doubling of the molecular mass of the species observed, which implies a doubling of the tumbling correlation time. Anisotropic tumbling of the complex in solution can yield up to an additional 15% increase in this correlation time [55]. In our case, the observed values of s m are sizably larger, indicating the presence of an equilibrium involving adducts of mass larger than the double of each protein.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 45%
“…The second interaction region appears instead to be more susceptible to variations in primary sequence. In our case, the most likely additional binding site comprises helix a 5 (55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)(61) and the turn up to residue 64.…”
Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the fitting is not satisfactory since the NOE values calculated with the parameters of this model for internal motion are larger than the experimental values. Although one possible explanation for the unsatisfactory fit of Table 5 could be anisotropic tumbling of the polysaccharide subunit (Schurr et al, 1994;Hricovini & Tori, 1995), we have some evidence indicating that anisotropy is not significant. In model building based on 3 J CH data and NOE data for the polysaccharide of S. mitis J22, we have observed that the orientation of the C1-H1 vectors of residues a, b, g, and f are quite different, so it is likely that these vectors would differ in their orientation with respect to the principal axis of any anisotropic motion [Xu & Bush, 1996 (accompanying paper)].…”
Section: Dynamics Of a Flexible Polysaccharidementioning
confidence: 71%
“…In this case, the rotational diffusion of the protein as a whole modulates the effects of internal dynamics on NMR relaxation, and the spin relaxation rates depend on the orientation of the u(N i H i ) vectors with respect to the principal axes of the protein diffusion tensor. [7,8] For an overall diffusion described by a symmetric top model the correlation function C ii (t) is given in Equation (13), using the conventions used by Daragan and Mayo: [9] C ii ðtÞ¼ X where the symbol D r denotes the three eigenvalues of the overall diffusion tensor and the coefficients x ir, s relate the orientation of the vector u(N i H i ) to the diffusion tensor frame. The expressions of x ir, s are defined by Daragan and Mayo [9] and are reproduced in Table 1.…”
Section: Ementioning
confidence: 99%