PSI Structural Biology Knowledgebase

PSI | Structural Biology Knowledgebase
Header Icons

Related Articles
Signaling: A Platform for Opposing Functions
May 2015
Protein Folding and Misfolding: It's the Journey, Not the Destination
March 2015
Molecular Portraits of the Cell
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: A Flexible Transporter
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Higher Resolution of Macromolecules
February 2015
Nuclear Pore Complex: Integrative Approach to Probe Nup133
February 2015
Piecing Together the Nuclear Pore Complex
February 2015
Updating ModBase
January 2015
Transmembrane Spans
December 2014
Mining Protein Dynamics
May 2014
Novel Proteins and Networks: Assigning Function
May 2014
Cancer Networks: Predicting Catalytic Residues from 3D Protein Structures
November 2013
The Immune System: A Brotherhood of Immunoglobulins
June 2013
The Immune System: Super Cytokines
June 2013
Infectious Diseases: Targeting Meningitis
May 2013
PDZ Domains
April 2013
Protein Interaction Networks: Adding Structure to Protein Networks
April 2013
Design and Discovery: Flexible Backbone Protein Redesign
February 2013
Pocket changes
July 2012
Predictive protein origami
July 2012
Refining protein structure prediction
March 2012
Metal mates
February 2012
Devil is in the details
January 2012
Playing while you work
November 2011
Docking and rolling
October 2011
Fit to serve
October 2011
Rosetta hone
July 2011
Structure from sequence
July 2011
An easier solution for symmetry
June 2011
Solutions in the solution
June 2011
Regulating nitrogen assimilation
January 2011
Guard cells pick up the SLAC
December 2010
Alpha/Beta Barrels
October 2010
Modeling RNA structures
May 2010
Deducing function from small structural clues
February 2010
Spot the pore
January 2010
Network coverage
November 2009
GPCR modeling: any good?
August 2009
Protein modeling made easy
July 2009
Model proteins in your lunch break
April 2009
Click for cancer-protein interactions
December 2008
Modeling with SAXS
October 2008
Designing activity
September 2008

Technology Topics Modeling

An easier solution for symmetry

SBKB [doi:10.1038/sbkb.2011.23]
Technical Highlight - June 2011
Short description: A new method from the Rosetta suite allows for the determination of symmetric oligomeric protein structures in solution using primarily RDCs and chemical shifts.

The tetramerization domain of p53, used to evaluate the RosettaOligomer approach. Image provided by on Wikimedia Commons.

Most proteins function in the cell as part of large symmetric oligomeric structures. However, structural characterization of these complexes using solution NMR methods has been limited by a number of factors. High-molecular weight complexes have slower tumbling times, limiting the resolution of NMR spectra. Their large size also complicates the use of NOE methods to derive interface restraints, and their structural symmetry gives rise to poor spectral quality and makes it difficult to distinguish whether resulting crosspeaks are due to intra- or intermolecular interactions.

Previous methods for examining dimeric or higher-order symmetric complexes relied upon distance restraints provided by interface NOEs or chemical shift mapping data (which can be ambiguous), as well as small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) experiments or residual dipolar couplings (RDCs) data. When distance restraints have been unavailable, docking studies using experimental RDC data and structural models of the protein monomer can be performed, but they are challenging and error-prone. In addition, such studies need a previously determined crystal or solution structure.

Rosetta, the de novo structural prediction algorithm, can symmetrically dock oligomers of varying size and topology provided the structure of a monomeric subunit is known. Its fold-and-dock protocol can also model interleaved topologies of large symmetric complexes. RosettaOligomers, a new, automated method presented by Sgourakis and colleagues (PSI NESG), is an extension of Rosetta that can determine the structure of symmetric protein systems, intertwined or not, without the need for a structural model. RosettaOligomers uses the CS-Rosetta protocol to first produce a model ensemble for a monomeric subunit based upon backbone chemical shift assignments. RDC restraints are then applied to dock the subunits in the complex. If no model convergence is achieved, suggesting an interleaved topology, the fold-and-dock protocol is used, guided by the chemical shift and RDC data.

The authors evaluated RosettaOligomers against several symmetric dimer systems whose structures were previously determined, as well as against the p53 tetramer, finding their structural models to agree with the experimentally determined ones. For larger symmetric systems, they expect that additional data provided by sparse NOEs or SAXS would help determine the correct native oligomeric structure. This methodology should be a useful tool in high-throughput structural genomics initiatives.

Michelle Montoya


  1. N.G. Sgourakis et al. Determination of the structures of symmetric protein oligomers from NMR chemical shifts and residual dipolar couplings.
    J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133, 6288-6298 (2011). doi:10.1021/ja111318m

Structural Biology Knowledgebase ISSN: 1758-1338
Funded by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health