Extended Data Table 2.
Structures aligned with the kissing loops | ||||||||
| ||||||||
3-way jct. | P1* | U48 | U51 | U74 | Hinge | Latch | Kissing loops | |
|
||||||||
apo2 vs. 4TZX | 6.4 | 6.5 | 13.3 | 10.1 | 2.8 | 5.9 | 7.5 | 0.8 |
apo1 vs. 4TZX | 6.2 | 10.3 | 11.5 | 10.0 | 2.8 | 7.8 | 6.8 | 0.8 |
apo1 vs. apo2 | 3.4 | 6.4 | 2.8 | 4.7 | 1.7 | 7.2 | 2.0 | 0.5 |
apo1 vs. IB | 3.5 | 5.0 | 2.3 | 4.8 | 1.6 | 6.4 | 2.0 | 0.8 |
apo2 vs. IB | 1.3 | 1.4 | 2.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.3 |
IB vs. 4TZX | 5.6 | 6.6 | 12.2 | 9.9 | 3.2 | 5.4 | 6.5 | 0.89 |
| ||||||||
Whole structure alignments | ||||||||
| ||||||||
3-way jct. | P1* | U48 | U51 | U74 | Hinge | Latch | Kissing loops | |
|
||||||||
apo2 vs. 4TZX | 5.6 | 2.5 | 10.6 | 10.0 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 4.9 | 0.9 |
apo1 vs. 4TZX | 5.6 | 3.4 | 7.9 | 10.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 4.8 | 0.8 |
apo1 vs. apo2 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 0.3 |
apo1 vs. IB | 3.3 | 3.8 | 2.3 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 6.2 | 1.8 | 1.1 |
apo2 vs. IB | 1.3 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.3 |
IB vs. 4TZX | 5.5 | 4.1 | 10.7 | 10.9 | 2.4 | 5.1 | 6.4 | 1.4 |
The r.m.s.d. values (Å) of P1 when compared alone are among the three structures:
1.3 Å (apo2 versus bound); 0.9 Å (apo1 versus bound); 1.0 Å (apo2 versus apo1); 1.4 Å (IB versus bound); 1.3 Å (IB versus apo1); 1.3 Å (IB versus apo2).