<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [RASMB] Frict ratios and sedfit</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Samantha<BR>
<BR>
I think Karl's comments are very relevant. And they bring up a point which is often overlooked when doing SV analysis. Which is this: a 'single' peak seen by c(s) - or any other - analysis, reflecting the presence of a 'single' sedimenting boundary, does <U>not</U> of necessity imply the presence of a single physical species. A monomer-dimer equilibrium <I>also</I> gives rise to a single (and in practice only slightly asymmetric) boundary/c(s)peak/whatever. {Gilbert & Jenkins, long ago}. So where self-interaction is suspected - and even for choice when it isn't - it is sound practice to do your SV analysis at 3 different cell loading concentrations. If the measured s goes <U>up</U> with concentration, rather than down, you have self association, for certain. To attempt to use a simple c(M) fit to such a boundary is meaningless. <BR>
<BR>
So - in answer to your original query, I do <U>not</U> think it is feasible, from a single SV experiment, to sort out your problem. It is, however, quite feasible, as Karl suggests, that you have a tetramer-octomer in reversible equilibrium. The higher c values which (I guess) you use for XRS would drive the association towards octomer - and additionally all scattering methods 'see' large species better than small ones.<BR>
<BR>
With Sedfit, as with all software, it is important not to let numbers spilling out deprive you of your scientific judgement. If floating the meniscus, for example, results in the meniscus being 'found' to be in a position which is patently absurd, then do not believe it. And for sure, as Karl says, do not swallow the idea of any sort of globular protein having a frictional ratio >2. {OK - my old favourite protein, myosin, has an f/f0 > 3! But that's another story, and another field},<BR>
<BR>
Kind regards<BR>
<BR>
Arthur<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>--<BR>
*******************************************************<BR>
Arthur J Rowe<BR>
Professor of Biomolecular Technology<BR>
NCMH Business Centre<BR>
University of Nottingham<BR>
School of Biosciences<BR>
Sutton Bonington<BR>
Leicestershire LE12 5RD UK<BR>
<BR>
Tel: +44 (0)115 951 6156<BR>
+44 (0)116 271 4502<BR>
Fax: +44 (0)115 951 6157<BR>
email: arthur.rowe@nottingham.ac.uk<BR>
Web: www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/business<BR>
*******************************************************<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><TT>Samantha,<BR>
<BR>
Were the scattering studies done at much higher concentrations than the AUC studies? Were the solution conditions used in both experiments identical?<BR>
<BR>
My understanding of the c(s) method is that if you have a dominant peak, the transformation to c(M) from the optimized c(s) fit will give a good estimate of the molecular weight. The reason for this is that the wt avg f/fo ratio is mostly reporting on the dominant peak. This can change if some of the smaller peaks have significantly different individual f/fo values. <BR>
<BR>
I am not too sure how you did your c(M) modeling. Did you float f/f0 using the c(M) model? In your original c(s) modeling, are you sure you had reached the minimum reduced chi square?<BR>
<BR>
I have recently had good success with the c(s,f/f0) model. This model is a lot like (if not exactly like?) doing a series of c(s) fits at different constrained values of f/f0, then applying the regularization in both the s and f/fo dimensions. If your data consists of a predominant peak and is not too noisy, both the s dimension and the f/f0 dimension will be well defined, which allows you to estimate the average molecular weight of the main peak. In this case, this estimate is not affected by the other peaks. This is described in Brown and Schuck Biophysics, 2006.<BR>
<BR>
Also, I think a f/f0 of 2.4 is absurdly high -- on the order of an unfolded protein.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Good luck,<BR>
<BR>
Karl Maluf<BR>
<BR>
________________________________<BR>
<BR>
From: rasmb-bounces@server1.bbri.org on behalf of Samantha Jones (PRION)<BR>
Sent: Tue 10/31/2006 11:48 AM<BR>
To: rasmb@server1.bbri.org<BR>
Subject: [RASMB] Frict ratios and sedfit<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Hello<BR>
I recently analyzed some data using c(S) distribution model on Sedfit. The distribution showed a few peaks, with the main peak being at 4S. I floated the frictional ratio and came back with approx 1.5. I then converted this to a c(M) distribution with the main peak now showing approx 65,000 Daltons. Knowing our monomer weight as 16,400 Daltons I concluded this was a tetramer.<BR>
At the same time the same protein sample was analyzed using synchrotron X ray scattering. Their results concluded an octomer, a two ring structure.<BR>
With this knowledge I went back to the data and reanalyzed using Sedfit, c(s) and c(M) again. Using the calculator function on Sedfit I calculated that for 4S with a frictional ratio 1.5 this would be roughly the tetramer weight, however, a frictional ratio of 2.4 for 4s gives a molecular weight equal to the octomer. When I entered this into the parameters of the c(M) model the rsmd values show the f/f0 of 2.4 gives a better fit, 0.07 to 0.119 for f/f0 of 1.5.<BR>
My question is how I could have got this answer without the knowledge of the scattering data? Is the use of the calculator function to fit data recommended? Especially in a sample with three peaks?<BR>
<BR>
Many thanks<BR>
<BR>
Samantha <BR>
<BR>
Samantha Jones<BR>
MRC Prion Unit<BR>
Institute of Neurology<BR>
Queen Square<BR>
London<BR>
WC1N 3BG <BR>
<BR>
###########################################<BR>
<BR>
This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange.<BR>
For more information, connect to http://www.f-secure.com/ <BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
RASMB mailing list<BR>
RASMB@rasmb.bbri.org<BR>
http://rasmb.bbri.org/mailman/listinfo/rasmb<BR>
</TT></BLOCKQUOTE><TT><BR>
</TT>
</BODY>
<br/>
<p>
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
</p>
</HTML>