Comparison of NMR and crystal structures for the proteins TM1112 and TM1367

NMR structures of the proteins TM1112 and TM1367 solved by the JCSG in solution at 298 K could be superimposed with the corresponding crystal structures at 100 K with r.m.s.d. values of <1.0 Å for the backbone heavy atoms. For both proteins the structural differences between multiple molecules in the asymmetric unit of the crystals correlated with structural variations within the bundles of conformers used to represent the NMR solution structures. A recently introduced JCSG NMR structure-determination protocol, which makes use of the software package UNIO for extensive automation, was further evaluated by comparison of the TM1112 structure obtained using these automated methods with another NMR structure that was independently solved in another PSI center, where a largely interactive approach was applied. The NMR structures of the TM1112 and TM1367 proteins from Thermotoga maritima in solution at 298 K were determined following a new protocol which uses the software package UNIO for extensive automation. The results obtained with this novel procedure were evaluated by comparison with the crystal structures solved by the JCSG at 100 K to 1.83 and 1.90 Å resolution, respectively. In addition, the TM1112 solution structure was compared with an NMR structure solved by the NESG using a conventional largely interactive methodology. For both proteins, the newly determined NMR structure could be superimposed with the crystal structure with r.m.s.d. values of <1.0 Å for the backbone heavy atoms, which provided a starting platform to investigate local structure variations, which may arise from either the methods used or from the different chemical environments in solution and in the crystal. Thereby, these comparative studies were further explored with the use of reference NMR and crystal structures, which were computed using the NMR software with input of upper-limit distance constraints derived from the molecular models that represent the results of structure determination by NMR and by X-ray diffraction, respectively. The results thus obtained show that NMR structure calculations with the new automated UNIO software used by the JCSG compare favorably with those from a more labor-intensive and time-intensive interactive procedure. An intriguing observation is that the 'bundles' of two TM1112 or three TM1367 molecules in the asymmetric unit of the crystal structures mimic the behavior of the bundles of 20 conformers used to represent the NMR solution structures when comparing global r.m.s.d. values calculated either for the polypeptide backbone, the core residues with solvent accessibility below 15% or all heavy atoms