Experimental Data Snapshot

  • Resolution: 1.57 Å
  • R-Value Free: 0.266 
  • R-Value Work: 0.200 
  • R-Value Observed: 0.204 

wwPDB Validation   3D Report Full Report

This is version 1.4 of the entry. See complete history


Repacking the Core of T4 Lysozyme by Automated Design

Mooers, B.H.Datta, D.Baase, W.A.Zollars, E.S.Mayo, S.L.Matthews, B.W.

(2003) J Mol Biol 332: 741-756

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-2836(03)00856-8
  • Primary Citation of Related Structures:  
    1P2L, 1P2R, 1P36, 1P37, 1P3N, 1P46, 1P64, 1P6Y, 1P7S, 1PQD, 1PQI, 1PQJ, 1PQK, 1PQM, 1PQO

  • PubMed Abstract: 

    Automated protein redesign, as implemented in the program ORBIT, was used to redesign the core of phage T4 lysozyme. A total of 26 buried or partially buried sites in the C-terminal domain were allowed to vary both their sequence and side-chain conformation while the backbone and non-selected side-chains remained fixed. A variant with seven substitutions ("Core-7") was identified as having the most favorable energy. The redesign experiment was repeated with a penalty for the presence of methionine residues. In this case the redesigned protein ("Core-10") had ten amino acid changes. The two designed proteins, as well as the constituent single mutants, and several single-site revertants were over-expressed in Escherichia coli, purified, and subjected to crystallographic and thermal analyses. The thermodynamic and structural data show that some repacking was achieved although neither redesigned protein was more stable than the wild-type protein. The use of the methionine penalty was shown to be effective. Several of the side-chain rotamers in the predicted structure of Core-10 differ from those observed. Rather than changing to new rotamers predicted by the design process, side-chains tend to maintain conformations similar to those seen in the native molecule. In contrast, parts of the backbone change by up to 2.8A relative to both the designed structure and wild-type. Water molecules that are present within the lysozyme molecule were removed during the design process. In the redesigned protein the resultant cavities were, to some degree, re-occupied by side-chain atoms. In the observed structure, however, water molecules were still bound at or near their original sites. This suggests that it may be preferable to leave such water molecules in place during the design procedure. The results emphasize the specificity of the packing that occurs within the core of a typical protein. While point substitutions within the core are tolerated they almost always result in a loss of stability. Likewise, combinations of substitutions may also be tolerated but usually destabilize the protein. Experience with T4 lysozyme suggests that a general core repacking methodology with retention or enhancement of stability may be difficult to achieve without provision for shifts in the backbone.

  • Organizational Affiliation

    Department of Physics, Institute of Molecular Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 1229 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1229, USA.

Find similar proteins by:  (by identity cutoff)  |  3D Structure
Entity ID: 1
MoleculeChains Sequence LengthOrganismDetailsImage
Lysozyme164Tequatrovirus T4Mutation(s): 8 
Gene Names: E
Find proteins for P00720 (Enterobacteria phage T4)
Explore P00720 
Go to UniProtKB:  P00720
Entity Groups  
Sequence Clusters30% Identity50% Identity70% Identity90% Identity95% Identity100% Identity
UniProt GroupP00720
Sequence Annotations
  • Reference Sequence
Experimental Data & Validation

Experimental Data

  • Resolution: 1.57 Å
  • R-Value Free: 0.266 
  • R-Value Work: 0.200 
  • R-Value Observed: 0.204 
  • Space Group: P 32 2 1
Unit Cell:
Length ( Å )Angle ( ˚ )
a = 60.001α = 90
b = 60.001β = 90
c = 95.615γ = 120
Software Package:
Software NamePurpose
MOSFLMdata reduction
SCALAdata scaling
CCP4data scaling

Structure Validation

View Full Validation Report

Entry History 

Deposition Data

Revision History  (Full details and data files)

  • Version 1.0: 2003-10-07
    Type: Initial release
  • Version 1.1: 2008-04-29
    Changes: Version format compliance
  • Version 1.2: 2011-07-13
    Changes: Version format compliance
  • Version 1.3: 2021-10-27
    Changes: Database references, Derived calculations
  • Version 1.4: 2023-08-16
    Changes: Data collection, Refinement description