Skip to main content
. 2005 Jan 12;102(3):651–655. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0408939102

Table 1. Input for the structure calculation and characterization of the energy-minimized NMR solution structures of tPrP(121–225), chPrP(121–225), and xlPrP(90–222).

Quantity* chPrP(121–225) tPrP(121–225) xlPrP(90–222)
NOE upper distance limits 1,889 1,522 2,283
Dihedral angle constraints 123 110
Residual target function value, Å2 1.62 ± 0.20 1.75 ± 0.18 1.99 ± 0,19
Residual distance constraint violations
   Number > 0.1 Å 29 ± 2 30 ± 4 24 ± 4
   Maximum, Å 0.16 ± 0.03 0.14 ± 0.01 0.14 ± 0.01
Residual dihedral angle constraint violations
   Number > 2.0° 1 ± 1 0
   Maximum, ° 2.13 ± 0.80 1.21 ± 0.71
Amber energies, kcal/mol
   Total –4,633 ± 98 –4,694 ± 69 –5,215 ± 60
   van der Waals –285 ± 17 –309 ± 16 –244 ± 17
   Electrostatic –5,285 ± 94 –5,265 ± 74 –6,032 ± 59
rms deviation to the averaged coordinates (Å)
   Backbone (N, Cα, C′) 0.72 ± 0.14 0.85 ± 0.13 0.75 ± 0.13
(135–200, 211–237) (125–224) (127–166, 172–225)
All heavy atoms 1.17 ± 0.13 1.33 ± 0.15 1.19 ± 0.12
*

Except for the top two entries, the average for the 20 conformers with the lowest residual dyana target function values and the standard deviation among them are given. NOE, nuclear Overhauser enhancement

The numbers in parentheses identify the polypeptide segments for which the rms deviation was calculated