English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Covalent labeling mass spectrometry experiments are growing in popularity and provide important information regarding protein structure. Information obtained from these experiments correlates with residue solvent exposure within the protein in solution. However, it is impossible to determine protein structure from covalent labeling data alone. Incorporation of sparse covalent labeling data into the protein structure prediction software Rosetta has been shown to improve protein tertiary structure prediction. Here, covalent labeling techniques were analyzed computationally to provide insight into what labeling data is needed to optimize tertiary protein structure prediction in Rosetta. We have successfully implemented a new scoring functionality that provides improved predictions. We developed two new covalent labeling based score terms that use a "cone"-based neighbor count to quantify the relative solvent exposure of each amino acid. To test our method, we used a set of 20 proteins with structures deposited in the Protein Data Bank. Decoy model sets were generated for each of these 20 proteins, and the normalized covalent labeling score versus RMSD distributions were evaluated. On the basis of these distributions, we have determined an optimal subset of residues to use when performing covalent labeling experiments in order to maximize the structure prediction capabilities of the covalent labeling data. We also investigated how much false negative and false positive data can be tolerated without meaningfully impacting protein structure prediction. Using these new covalent labeling score terms, protein models were rescored and the resulting models improved by 3.9 Å RMSD on average. New models were also generated using Rosetta's AbinitioRelax program under the guidance of covalent labeling information, and improvement in model quality was observed.

Utility of Covalent Labeling Mass Spectrometry Data in Protein Structure Prediction with Rosetta