Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jan 27.
Published in final edited form as: J Mol Biol. 2011 Nov 22;415(4):649–665. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2011.11.027

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Comparative structural overview of the ceNXF2/ceNXT1 complex. (a) Cartoon stereo view representation of ceNXF2(NTF2) (red) in complex with ceNXT1 (violet). (b) Electrostatic surface potential (ESP) representation of ceNXT1 and ceNXF2(NTF2), highlighting hydrophobicity and electrostatics of interface, non-polar (grey), basic (blue), acidic (red). Cartoon representation of ceNXT1 (violet) and ceNXF2(NTF2) (red) in same orientation as ESP. Alpha helix “α”, beta strand “β”, loop “L” and insertion (grey) elements of NTF2 fold are labeled on ceNXF2(NTF2) and ceNXT1. Apical surface of ceNXF2(NTF2) is formed by insertion elements, 90°top view. (c) Ribbon representation of ceNXT1 (red) and ceNXF2(NTF2) (red) superposed with human and Candida albicans orthologues. Same orientation as (b) with an additional 90° side view. Coloring according to species (blue = hsNXT1 and hsNXF1, green = caMex67 and caMtr2). Significant structural differences (black stars) and the Nup binding site (black arrow) are indicated. Boxed “1” and “2” denote ceNXT1 pockets. Structural alignments generated by DALI.27 Structural models in all figures from Pymol (www.pymol.org).