Given a standard NOESY-based protein structure determination: Does anyone have any information on the benefits of measuring peak intensity by a volume integration method rather than simply measuring the peak height.
Obviously integration is theoretically more accurate, but does it make any difference to the quality of the structures produced? especially if peak lineshapes are comparable?
I was hoping to find some study comparing structures produced by both methods.....
I'm also curious about the benefits of distance-calbrating NOEs to a curve rather than simply putting restraints in a few different bins?
I haven't seen any studies comparing structures calculated from peak heights or volumes but Peter Wright's group did analysis a few years ago about the differences in relaxation rates calculated from intensities and volumes as well as data fitting.
Viles JH, Duggan BM, Zaborowski E, Schwarzinger S, Huntley JJ, Kroon GJ, Dyson HJ, Wright PE. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Potential bias in NMR relaxation data introduced by peak intensity analysis and curve fitting methods.
J Biomol NMR. 2001 Sep;21(1):1-9.
PMID: 11693564 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I believe they found that routines that found intensities by checking for the highest point in an area around a peak maximum biased the measurements to higher value because they were subject to influence of noise but that the results were otherwise quite similar. In my experience most people use intensities when they a large number of NOEs as in protein spectra and use volumes in combination with careful relaxation analysis/simulation routines (ie CORMA) where few distance constraints are available as is the case in DNA. For protein structures a large number of loose constraints serves to restrain the structure quite well and the extra time, difficulties and overlap problems of peak integration are not worth the trouble.
Hi!
I think in a NOESY based structure determination, all the program that are available are dealing with the volume based integration.
In my view volume based integration would be more better as the peaks are considered to be in a 3D space, where as line shape involving measurement of the peak height in all the 3D dimension will become more tedious.
If you get more better explanation do write to me.
I haven't seen any studies comparing structures calculated from peak heights or volumes but Peter Wright's group did analysis a few years ago about the differences in relaxation rates calculated from intensities and volumes as well as data fitting.
Viles JH, Duggan BM, Zaborowski E, Schwarzinger S, Huntley JJ, Kroon GJ, Dyson HJ, Wright PE. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Potential bias in NMR relaxation data introduced by peak intensity analysis and curve fitting methods.
J Biomol NMR. 2001 Sep;21(1):1-9.
PMID: 11693564 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I believe they found that routines that found intensities by checking for the highest point in an area around a peak maximum biased the measurements to higher value because they were subject to influence of noise but that the results were otherwise quite similar. In my experience most people use intensities when they a large number of NOEs as in protein spectra and use volumes in combination with careful relaxation analysis/simulation routines (ie CORMA) where few distance constraints are available as is the case in DNA. For protein structures a large number of loose constraints serves to restrain the structure quite well and the extra time, difficulties and overlap problems of peak integration are not worth the trouble.
NOE peak intensities are less prone to baseline offset errors than NOE peak volumes
If processing is not perfect (e.g. improper 1st data point scaling in the indirect dimension, which depends on the existence of a non-zero 1st order phase correction), the baseline (in other words the noise ) can have an offset from 0. This can be spotted for example when looking at 1D traces in the indirect dimension of the ROESY or NOESY spectrum: it looks like the average noise line for the most intense peaks (e.g. diagonal peaks or methyl peaks) lies above (or below) the true 0 line (i.e. the average noise line of the traces that don't contain strong peaks).
This results into a larger relative error in peak volumes compared to peak intensities. Say the average noise level is offset above (below) 0, it will add (subtract) a large quantity to the peak volume because it's close to the peak base, which is broad (basically the additional volume added/subtracted will be be approx. the noise average times the broad area of the peak base). The error propagated in the intensity is only the noise average. Again, the noise average is nonzero because the noise is artificially above or below the true 0 baseline.
Since this error is non-uniform (it applies only to cross peaks that align in F2 frequency to the strong peaks, or ultimately only to peaks with a baseline offset), it may decrease significantly the overall accuracy of the resulting NOE constraint set.
Did you find this post helpful? |
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Peak shape in NMR
Hi there,
I'm quite new to NMR, but one thing I've been wondering is: are the shapes of the peaks in an NMR spectrum important? I know that the frequency information is important, and the amplitude can sometimes be important for experiments like NOESY, but does the overall shape matter? Can anymore information be deduced from this?
Thanks
newToNMR
NMR Questions and Answers
1
12-13-2010 06:50 AM
[NMR paper] Automated peak picking and peak integration in macromolecular NMR spectra using AUTOP
Automated peak picking and peak integration in macromolecular NMR spectra using AUTOPSY.
Related Articles Automated peak picking and peak integration in macromolecular NMR spectra using AUTOPSY.
J Magn Reson. 1998 Dec;135(2):288-97
Authors: Koradi R, Billeter M, Engeli M, Güntert P, Wüthrich K
A new approach for automated peak picking of multidimensional protein NMR spectra with strong overlap is introduced, which makes use of the program AUTOPSY (automated peak picking for NMR spectroscopy). The main elements of this program are a novel...
nmrlearner
Journal club
0
11-17-2010 11:15 PM
[NMR Sparky Yahoo group] Re: peak color
Re: peak color
I will give it a shot, but there is now way to edit some code that comes with MacOS version? ________________________________ From: Tom Goddard
More...
nmrlearner
News from other NMR forums
0
11-10-2010 04:10 AM
Carbene peak 13C NMR.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Carbene_peak_13C_NMR.png/282px-Carbene_peak_13C_NMR.png
Uploaded by user "Quantockgoblin" on Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:53:00 UTC
Added to category on Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:35:30 UTC
Original image: 440×468 pixel; 24.143 bytes.
Licensing : Public domain
Carbene peak 13C NMR.png
More...
nmrlearner
NMR pictures
0
11-01-2010 08:38 AM
[NMR Sparky Yahoo group] Re: peak color
Re: peak color
Hi Andrew, Unfortunately the white color of the peak markers and labels in Sparky is coded into the C++ and cannot be changed without recompiling Sparky. If
More...
nmrlearner
News from other NMR forums
0
10-29-2010 09:32 PM
[NMR Sparky Yahoo group] peak color
peak color
Is there a way to edit the some file so that every time i pick a peak and label it so that they come up black instead of white?
More...