Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Oct 12.
Published in final edited form as: Structure. 2007 Jun;15(6):741–749. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2007.04.014

Figure 3. Schematic Description of the Calculation Scheme Adopted in the Present Study.

Figure 3

(A) <(ΔRi)2>NMR, the rmsd between the 20 NMR models (in the left diagram) deposited for MSP shown as a function of residue index 1 ≤ i ≤ 252.

(B) Rms fluctuations, <(ΔRi)2>1/2X-ray, revealed by the B factors in the X-ray structure of MSP (i.e., as a function of residue index i).

(C and D) Rms fluctuations computed by the GNM for the NMR structure, <(ΔRi)2>GNM-N (C), and rms fluctuations computed by the GNM for the crystal structure, <(ΔRi)2>1/2GNM-X (D). The two middle plots show the comparison of the experimental and theoretical results for the NMR (left) and X-ray (right) models. The correlation coefficient, σNG, between <(ΔRi)2>1/2NMR and <(ΔRi)2>1/2GNM-N is 0.909 (left), and that, σXG, between <(ΔRi)2>1/2 X-ray and <(ΔRi)2>1/2GNM-X is 0.596 (right). PDB ID codes 3MSP and 1MSP share 100%sequence identity and rmsd of 1.45 Å for the Cα atoms.