Cargando…

Are the St John’s wort Hyp-1 superstructures different?

Two commensurately modulated structures (PDB entries 4n3e and 6sjj) were solved using translational noncrystallographic symmetry (tNCS). The data required the use of large supercells, sevenfold and ninefold, respectively, to properly index the reflections. Commensurately modulated structures can be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lovelace, Jeffrey J., Borgstahl, Gloria E. O.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Union of Crystallography 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8171068/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34076592
http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S2059798321003740
_version_ 1783702359522672640
author Lovelace, Jeffrey J.
Borgstahl, Gloria E. O.
author_facet Lovelace, Jeffrey J.
Borgstahl, Gloria E. O.
author_sort Lovelace, Jeffrey J.
collection PubMed
description Two commensurately modulated structures (PDB entries 4n3e and 6sjj) were solved using translational noncrystallographic symmetry (tNCS). The data required the use of large supercells, sevenfold and ninefold, respectively, to properly index the reflections. Commensurately modulated structures can be challenging to solve. Molecular-replacement software such as Phaser can detect tNCS and either handle it automatically or, for more challenging situations, allow the user to enter a tNCS vector, which the software then uses to place the components. Although this approach has been successful in solving these types of challenging structures, it does not make it easy to understand the underlying modulation in the structure or how these two structures are related. An alternate view of this problem is that the atoms and associated parameters are following periodic atomic modulation functions (AMFs) in higher dimensional space, and what is being observed in these supercells are the points where these higher dimensional AMFs intersect physical 3D space. In this case, the two 3D structures, with a sevenfold and a ninefold superstructure, seem to be quite different. However, describing those structures within the higher dimensional superspace approach makes a strong case that they are closely related, as they show very similar AMFs and can be described with one unique (3+1)D structure, i.e. they are two different 3D intersections of the same (3+1)D structure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8171068
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher International Union of Crystallography
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81710682021-06-14 Are the St John’s wort Hyp-1 superstructures different? Lovelace, Jeffrey J. Borgstahl, Gloria E. O. Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol Research Papers Two commensurately modulated structures (PDB entries 4n3e and 6sjj) were solved using translational noncrystallographic symmetry (tNCS). The data required the use of large supercells, sevenfold and ninefold, respectively, to properly index the reflections. Commensurately modulated structures can be challenging to solve. Molecular-replacement software such as Phaser can detect tNCS and either handle it automatically or, for more challenging situations, allow the user to enter a tNCS vector, which the software then uses to place the components. Although this approach has been successful in solving these types of challenging structures, it does not make it easy to understand the underlying modulation in the structure or how these two structures are related. An alternate view of this problem is that the atoms and associated parameters are following periodic atomic modulation functions (AMFs) in higher dimensional space, and what is being observed in these supercells are the points where these higher dimensional AMFs intersect physical 3D space. In this case, the two 3D structures, with a sevenfold and a ninefold superstructure, seem to be quite different. However, describing those structures within the higher dimensional superspace approach makes a strong case that they are closely related, as they show very similar AMFs and can be described with one unique (3+1)D structure, i.e. they are two different 3D intersections of the same (3+1)D structure. International Union of Crystallography 2021-05-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8171068/ /pubmed/34076592 http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S2059798321003740 Text en © Lovelace & Borgstahl 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.
spellingShingle Research Papers
Lovelace, Jeffrey J.
Borgstahl, Gloria E. O.
Are the St John’s wort Hyp-1 superstructures different?
title Are the St John’s wort Hyp-1 superstructures different?
title_full Are the St John’s wort Hyp-1 superstructures different?
title_fullStr Are the St John’s wort Hyp-1 superstructures different?
title_full_unstemmed Are the St John’s wort Hyp-1 superstructures different?
title_short Are the St John’s wort Hyp-1 superstructures different?
title_sort are the st john’s wort hyp-1 superstructures different?
topic Research Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8171068/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34076592
http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S2059798321003740
work_keys_str_mv AT lovelacejeffreyj arethestjohnsworthyp1superstructuresdifferent
AT borgstahlgloriaeo arethestjohnsworthyp1superstructuresdifferent