Skip to main content
. 2012 Nov 13;7(11):e49195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049195

Figure 4. Comparison between hydrophobic contacts in WT.

Figure 4

Inline graphic -T (left panels (A, and C)) and WT Inline graphic -T (right panels (B, and D)). Top panels (A, B): the van der Waals space occupied by residues in the binding pocket is highlighted by the wireframe representation. The different conformation of the hydrophobic tail in Inline graphic-T and Inline graphic-T is evidenced. Lower panels (C, D): comparison between the interaction of Inline graphic-T (C) and Inline graphic-T with the helical mobile gate of the WT protein.