2001
DOI: 10.1107/s0021889800014126
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automated matching of high- and low-resolution structural models

Abstract: A method is presented for automated best-matching alignment of threedimensional models represented by ensembles of points. A normalized spatial discrepancy (NSD) is introduced as a proximity measure between threedimensional objects. Starting from an inertia-axes alignment, the algorithm minimizes the NSD; the ®nal value of the NSD provides a quantitative estimate of similarity between the objects. The method is implemented in a computer program. Simulations have been performed to test its performance on model … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

13
1,159
0
9

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,238 publications
(1,188 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
(29 reference statements)
13
1,159
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…The NSD parameter measure the proximity of two objects in the threedimensional space and is analogous to the error-weighted w-value used to characterized deviations within one-dimensional data sets 45 . Structural alignment can be performed by minimizing this parameter, and the NSD calculated between aligned structures provides a quantitative estimate of the similarity between the models.…”
Section: Saxs Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The NSD parameter measure the proximity of two objects in the threedimensional space and is analogous to the error-weighted w-value used to characterized deviations within one-dimensional data sets 45 . Structural alignment can be performed by minimizing this parameter, and the NSD calculated between aligned structures provides a quantitative estimate of the similarity between the models.…”
Section: Saxs Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4). Averaging and filtering of several ab initio modeling runs led to poorly superimposed ensembles (Kozin and Svergun 2001;Volkov and Svergun 2003) or oblate shapes with no features that would be instructive for structural interpretation at the resolution of A-form helices or independently folding structural domains (Supplemental Fig. 4).…”
Section: Ab Initio Modeling Fails To Define Unique Scattering Envelopesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ab initio modeling of the scattering envelopes was performed with DAMMIF (Franke and Svergun 2009) with P(r) distributions calculated with maximal reasonable value of D max (Supplemental Table S1). Ten individual reconstructions were calculated for each RNA, superimposed, averaged, and filtered with DAMSEL, DAMSUP, DAMAVER, and DAMFILT utilities as described elsewhere (Kozin and Svergun 2001;Volkov and Svergun 2003). Theoretical scattering profiles from all-atom models were calculated with CRYSOL (Svergun et al 1995) by assigning an electron density for solvent to 0.334 e/Å 3 and a thickness of the solvent shell to 3 Å .…”
Section: Saxs Data Collection and Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the 10 models constructed, the structure with the 2 close to 1 between computed I(Q) for the modeled structure versus the experimental data was used for structure interpretation (supplemental Table S3). Using SUPCOMB20 program, the inertial axes of the resultant low resolution shapes for the proteins and known crystal structures from x-ray diffraction were superimposed (35). Open source programs PyMOL and SPDB viewer were used for graphical analysis, manual alignment of models, and figure generation.…”
Section: Cloning and Purification Of Recombinant Gelsolin Mutants-mentioning
confidence: 99%