. 2024 Feb 23;146(9):6157–6167. doi: 10.1021/jacs.3c13745

Table 1. Comparison of the a_⊥ Values and the Associated Distances of Ub-T66C-DO3A, Determined from Different Analysis Approaches of the ENDOR Spectra Shown in Figure 4, and the Lorentzian Line Widths Δ_L Used in the Simulations (Gaussian Line Widths Were Found to Be Δ_G = 0 in All Cases).

method	a_⊥, kHz	r, Å	Δ_L, kHz
splitting determination	27	14
fit of summed spectra; single Gd–F distance^a	30.1 ± 1.4	13.5 ± 0.2	42 ± 8
fit of summed spectra; Gaussian distribution of distances^b		r₀ = 14.9 ± 0.5	13 ± 6
fit of summed spectra; Gaussian distribution of distances^b		Δr = 4.2 ± 0.6	13 ± 6
fit of individual spectra orientation selection predicted from ED-EPR simulation^c	30.4 ± 1.6	13.5 ± 0.2	36 ± 5
fit of individual spectra; orientation selection modeled phenomenologically^d	31.4 ± 2.0	13.3 ± 0.3	38 ± 3

Figure 4B, red line.

Figure 4B, blue line.

Figure 4A, red line.

Figure 4A, blue line.

Table 1. Comparison of the a⊥ Values and the Associated Distances of Ub-T66C-DO3A, Determined from Different Analysis Approaches of the ENDOR Spectra Shown in Figure 4, and the Lorentzian Line Widths ΔL Used in the Simulations (Gaussian Line Widths Were Found to Be ΔG = 0 in All Cases).