Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Aug 2.
Published in final edited form as: Biopolymers. 2011 Mar 7;95(9):591–606. doi: 10.1002/bip.21616

Table 2.

Differences in interactions (>50%) observed in Phe56Ala U1A-RNA complex simulation compared to wild type

Residues Positions Type of interaction Difference
Tyr13 – Ala56 β1 to β3 VDW − 86%
Ala56 – C5 β3 to RNA loop VDW − 73%
Ala56 – A6 β3 to RNA loop VDW − 70%
Lys50 – A6 loop 3 to RNA loop VDW − 52 %
U2 – G4 RNA loop H-bond (N2 of G4 – O2 of U2) − 61%
Glu19 – U2 loop 1 to RNA loop VDW − 74%
Arg52 – U2 loop 3 to RNA loop VDW − 51%
Arg52 – A1 loop 3 to RNA loop VDW − 58%
Ile33 – Gln36 helix A H-bond (NE2 of Gln36 – O of Ile33) + 52%
A-4 – U15 RNA stem VDW − 64%
A-5 – U15 RNA stem H-bond (N3 of U15 – N1 of A-5) − 80%
A-5 – U15 RNA stem H-bond (N6 of A-5 – O4 of U15) − 82%
A-5 – U15 RNA stem VDW − 83%
A-5 – U16 RNA stem H-bond (N6 of A-5 – O2* of U16) + 64%
A-5 – U16 RNA stem VDW + 60%
U14 – U15 RNA stem H-bond (O2* of U14 – O5* of U15) + 72%
U14 – U16 RNA stem VDW + 66%