4.4 Article

Atomic resolution studies of carbonic anhydrase II

出版社

INT UNION CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
DOI: 10.1107/S0907444910006554

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [GM 080232]
  2. Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research
  3. National Institutes of Health, National Center for Research Resources, Biomedical Technology
  4. National Institute of General Medical Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbonic anhydrase has been well studied structurally and functionally owing to its importance in respiration. A large number of X-ray crystallographic structures of carbonic anhydrase and its inhibitor complexes have been determined, some at atomic resolution. Structure determination of a sulfonamide-containing inhibitor complex has been carried out and the structure was refined at 0.9 angstrom resolution with anisotropic atomic displacement parameters to an R value of 0.141. The structure is similar to those of other carbonic anhydrase complexes, with the inhibitor providing a fourth nonprotein ligand to the active-site zinc. Comparison of this structure with 13 other atomic resolution (higher than 1.25 angstrom) isomorphous carbonic anhydrase structures provides a view of the structural similarity and variability in a series of crystal structures. At the center of the protein the structures superpose very well. The metal complexes superpose (with only two exceptions) with standard deviations of 0.01 angstrom in some zinc-protein and zinc-ligand bond lengths. In contrast, regions of structural variability are found on the protein surface, possibly owing to flexibility and disorder in the individual structures, differences in the chemical and crystalline environments or the different approaches used by different investigators to model weak or complicated electron-density maps. These findings suggest that care must be taken in interpreting structural details on protein surfaces on the basis of individual X-ray structures, even if atomic resolution data are available.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据