TABLE 2.
Experimental FRET data
|
Simulated FRET data
|
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rif
|
Rif SV
|
Rif+Rif SV
|
Rif
|
Rif SV
|
Rif+Rif SV
|
|
Number of restraints | 21 | 21 | 42 | 21 | 21 | 42 |
Accuracy (Å) | 7.1 | 10.1 | 7.1 | 11±4 | 13 ± 3 | 8 ± 2 |
Precision (Å) | 7.4 | 9.3 | 6.6 | 12 ± 7 | 12 ± 4 | 9 ± 4 |
Mean FRET penalty (Å) | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.4 ± 0.3 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.2 |
% FRET violation (0–5 Å) | 48 | 57 | 36 | 65 ± 14 | 80 ± 7 | 72 ± 8 |
% FRET violation (5–10 Å) | 9 | 10 | 17 | 24 ± 8 | 16 ± 7 | 18 ± 7 |
% FRET violation (>10 Å) | 43 | 33 | 47 | 11 ± 12 | 4 ± 5 | 10 ± 5 |
Comparison of model quality for models of antibiotics generated with experimental and simulated FRET data. Simulated FRET efficiency data were generated by back-calculating exact donor-acceptor distances in the RNAP holoenzyme reference model and incorporating 10% systematic error as well as 15% random error into the restraints. Results are postprocessed to eliminate all sterically impossible solutions given the RNAP reference model.