Electron Density Discrepancy Analysis of Energy Metabolism Coenzymes

Authors: Alan Luo, Hunter N. B. Moseley

Abstract:

Many macromolecular structure entries in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) have a range of regional (localized) quality issues, be it derived from X-ray crystallography, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, or other experimental approaches. However, most PDB entries are judged by global quality metrics like R-factor, R-free, and resolution for X-ray crystallography or backbone phi-psi distribution statistics and average restraint violations for NMR. Regional quality is often ignored when PDB entries are re-used for a variety of structurally based analyses. The binding of ligands, especially ligands involved in energy metabolism, is of particular interest in many structurally focused protein studies. Using a regional quality metric that provides chemically interpretable information from electron density maps, a significant number of outliers in regional structural quality was detected across X-ray crystallographic PDB entries for proteins bound to biochemically critical ligands. In this study, a series of analyses was performed to evaluate both specific and general potential factors that could promote these outliers. In particular, these potential factors were the minimum distance to a metal ion, the minimum distance to a crystal contact, and the isotropic atomic b-factor. To evaluate these potential factors, Fisher’s exact tests were performed, using regional quality criteria of outlier (top 1%, 2.5%, 5%, or 10%) versus non-outlier compared to a potential factor metric above versus below a certain outlier cutoff. The results revealed a consistent general effect from region-specific normalized b-factors but no specific effect from metal ion contact distances and only a very weak effect from crystal contact distance as compared to the b-factor results. These findings indicate that no single specific potential factor explains a majority of the outlier ligand-bound regions, implying that human error is likely as important as these other factors. Thus, all factors, including human error, should be considered when regions of low structural quality are detected. Also, the downstream re-use of protein structures for studying ligand-bound conformations should screen the regional quality of the binding sites. Doing so prevents misinterpretation due to the presence of structural uncertainty or flaws in regions of interest.

Keywords: Biomacromolecular structure, coenzyme, electron density discrepancy analysis, X-ray crystallography.

References:

[1] Rosato, A., R. Tejero, and G.T. Montelione, Quality assessment of protein NMR structures. Current opinion in structural biology, 2013. 23(5): p. 715-724.
[2] Bhattacharya, A., R. Tejero, and G.T. Montelione, Evaluating protein structures determined by structural genomics consortia. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 2007. 66(4): p. 778-795.
[3] Berman, H., K. Henrick, and H. Nakamura, Announcing the worldwide Protein Data Bank. Nat Struct Biol, 2003. 10(12): p. 980.
[4] Burley, S.K., et al., RCSB Protein Data Bank: Celebrating 50 years of the PDB with new tools for understanding and visualizing biological macromolecules in 3D. Protein Science, 2022. 31(1): p. 187-208.
[5] Li, J., A. Fu, and L. Zhang, An overview of scoring functions used for protein–ligand interactions in molecular docking. Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences, 2019. 11: p. 320-328.
[6] Stanzione, F., I. Giangreco, and J.C. Cole, Use of molecular docking computational tools in drug discovery. Progress in Medicinal Chemistry, 2021. 60: p. 273-343.
[7] Röhrig, U.F., et al., Attracting Cavities 2.0: Improving the Flexibility and Robustness for Small-Molecule Docking. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2023.
[8] Jacquemard, C., et al., Binding mode information improves fragment docking. Journal of Cheminformatics, 2019. 11(1): p. 1-15.
[9] Chachulski, L. and B.r. Windshügel, LEADS-FRAG: a benchmark data set for assessment of fragment docking performance. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2020. 60(12): p. 6544-6554.
[10] Chakraborti, S., K. Hatti, and N. Srinivasan, ‘All That Glitters Is Not Gold’: High-Resolution Crystal Structures of Ligand-Protein Complexes Need Not Always Represent Confident Binding Poses. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2021. 22(13): p. 6830.
[11] Ding, K., et al., Observing noncovalent interactions in experimental electron density for macromolecular systems: a novel perspective for protein–ligand interaction research. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2022. 62(7): p. 1734-1743.
[12] Scardino, V., J.I. Di Filippo, and C.N. Cavasotto, How good are AlphaFold models for docking-based virtual screening? Iscience, 2023. 26(1).
[13] Yao, S. and H.N. Moseley, Finding high-quality metal ion-centric regions across the worldwide Protein Data Bank. Molecules, 2019. 24: p. 3179.
[14] Yao, S. and H.N. Moseley, A chemical interpretation of protein electron density maps in the worldwide protein data bank. PloS one, 2020. 15(8): p. e0236894.
[15] Søndergaard, C.R., et al., Structural artifacts in protein− ligand X-ray structures: implications for the development of docking scoring functions. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 2009. 52(18): p. 5673-5684.
[16] Cotelesage, J.J., et al., Metalloprotein active site structure determination: synergy between X-ray absorption spectroscopy and X-ray crystallography. Journal of inorganic biochemistry, 2012. 115: p. 127-137.
[17] Bramer, D. and G.-W. Wei, Blind prediction of protein B-factor and flexibility. The Journal of chemical physics, 2018. 149(13).
[18] Sun, Z., et al., Utility of B-factors in protein science: interpreting rigidity, flexibility, and internal motion and engineering thermostability. Chemical reviews, 2019. 119(3): p. 1626-1665.
[19] Caldararu, O., et al., Are crystallographic B-factors suitable for calculating protein conformational entropy? Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2019. 21(33): p. 18149-18160.
[20] Gutmanas, A., et al., PDBe: protein data bank in Europe. Nucleic acids research, 2014. 42(D1): p. D285-D291.
[21] Touw, W.G. and G. Vriend, BDB: databank of PDB files with consistent B-factors. Protein Engineering, Design & Selection, 2014. 27(11): p. 457-462.
[22] Warren, G.L., et al., Essential considerations for using protein–ligand structures in drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today, 2012. 17(23-24): p. 1270-1281.
[23] Yao, S., et al., Aberrant coordination geometries discovered in the most abundant metalloproteins. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 2017. 85(5): p. 885-907.
[24] Cock, P.J., et al., Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics, 2009. 25(11): p. 1422-1423.
[25] DeLano, W.L., Pymol: An open-source molecular graphics tool. CCP4 Newsl. Protein Crystallogr, 2002. 40(1): p. 82-92.
[26] Luo, A. and H.N.B. Moseley. Supplemental Material Figshare. 2023 September 15, 2023; Available from: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24144261.