
==== Front
eLife
Elife
eLife
eLife
2050-084X
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

99770
10.7554/eLife.99770
version of record
Review Article
Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
Exploring protein structural ensembles: Integration of sparse experimental data from electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy with molecular modeling methods
Belyaeva Julia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6175-7942
12
Elgeti Matthias https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0550-4852
matthias.elgeti@uni-leipzig.de
123
1 https://ror.org/03s7gtk40 Institute for Drug Discovery, Leipzig University Medical School Leipzig Germany
2 https://ror.org/03s7gtk40 Institute for Medical Physics and Biophysics, Leipzig University Medical School Leipzig Germany
3 https://ror.org/03s7gtk40 Integrative Center for Bioinformatics, Leipzig University Leipzig Germany
Haider Shozeb Reviewing Editor https://ror.org/02jx3x895 University College London United Kingdom

Cui Qiang Senior Editor https://ror.org/05qwgg493 Boston University United States

16 9 2024
2024
13 e9977014 6 2024
29 8 2024
© 2024, Belyaeva and Elgeti
2024
Belyaeva and Elgeti
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Under physiological conditions, proteins continuously undergo structural fluctuations on different timescales. Some conformations are only sparsely populated, but still play a key role in protein function. Thus, meaningful structure–function frameworks must include structural ensembles rather than only the most populated protein conformations. To detail protein plasticity, modern structural biology combines complementary experimental and computational approaches. In this review, we survey available computational approaches that integrate sparse experimental data from electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy with molecular modeling techniques to derive all-atom structural models of rare protein conformations. We also propose strategies to increase the reliability and improve efficiency using deep learning approaches, thus advancing the field of integrative structural biology.

EPR spectroscopy
molecular modeling
computational structural biology
integrative structural biology
protein dynamics
DEER
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 1423 #421152132 Elgeti Matthias http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002347 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung SECAI 57616814 Belyaeva Julia http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft TRR386 #514664767 Elgeti Matthias The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.Author impact statementComplementing experimental data from EPR spectroscopy with computational modeling techniques provides access to protein structural dynamics and enables the characterization of rare protein conformations.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The conformational landscape and its role for protein function

Under physiological conditions, most proteins are highly dynamic, adopting various structures with distinct probabilities. The diversity and thermodynamics of protein structures may be conceptualized as a conformational landscape, which represents a low-dimensional projection of the multidimensional free energy surface of generalized protein coordinates (Figure 1). Following the nomenclature introduced by Frauenfelder et al., a macrostate represents the global thermodynamic state of a protein defined by the physical and (bio)chemical conditions, such as temperature, pressure, chemical potential, type, and concentration of solutes or ligands (Frauenfelder et al., 1991). Within a given macrostate, protein structural rearrangements may occur on different timescales. For example, conformational states (or simply conformations) are separated by barriers of several kT and thus interconvert on the timescale of microseconds to milliseconds. Within each conformational state, fluctuations which occur on the order of nanoseconds separate individual conformational substates, while even faster transitions occur between statistical substates (Frauenfelder et al., 1991; Henzler-Wildman and Kern, 2007). It is conceivable that the macrostate defines the equilibrium distributions of the entire conformational ensemble comprising all timescales (Shi et al., 2015).

Figure 1. The conformational landscape of proteins.

Each conformational state contributes a specific functional profile. Thus, protein function is defined by the distribution of conformational states, and their redistribution upon interaction with binding partners such as ligands (Figure 1). This functional framework entails that even sparsely populated conformational states can rise to functional relevance and thus should be considered when a protein is targeted pharmacologically. This was recently demonstrated for the most prominent pharmacological targets, G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), where minute amounts of active conformation lead to basal receptor activity (Lerch et al., 2020).

The three tiers of protein states are defined by their timescales of interconversion. Conformational states exchange on the slow, micro- to millisecond timescale (dotted lines), while conformational substates (green) and statistical substates (red) have lifetimes of nanoseconds or picoseconds, respectively. Changing the protein’s macrostate, for example by adding ligand (blue), leads to redistribution of the conformational equilibrium.

While various computational methods have been developed for the characterization of conformational landscapes, slow timescales (milliseconds and beyond) are still challenging to access. These shortcomings can be addressed by using complementary experimental methods, which provide access to slow conformational exchange and can resolve the equilibrium ensemble under (near-) physiological conditions. The integration of these experimental results with molecular modeling culminates in high-resolution structures of rare conformational states and their thermodynamics (Allison, 2017).

Experimental methods for studying conformational landscapes

Currently, the most commonly used approaches to study protein structure include X-ray diffraction, cryo-electron microscopy (EM), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET), and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. Each of these methods has its strengths and limitations. For instance, structures determined by X-ray diffraction provide high resolution, however, the conformational state most stable under crystal conditions may lack physiological relevance (Freed et al., 2010; Dasgupta et al., 1997; Rasmussen et al., 2011). Furthermore, the requirements of crystallization narrow the applicability of X-ray crystallography, because many proteins exhibit flexible regions which prevent crystallization or diminish resolution. This is especially true for membrane proteins, where shortening of dynamics loops or insertion of highly soluble and rigid proteins circumvent this problem (Carpenter et al., 2008; Lacapère et al., 2007; Ding et al., 2021; Thorsen et al., 2014). In order to access conformational dynamics, X-ray structural models commonly serve as a starting point for molecular modeling, for example using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. However, slow conformational changes (>10−5 s) remain challenging to follow with atomic resolution.

Cryo-EM may in principle directly explore conformational ensembles, and rapid vitrification enables the characterization of macrostates (Glaeser, 2016; Kühlbrandt, 2014; Yip et al., 2020). Though freezing may still introduce bias toward specific conformations, cryo-EM is the most rapidly advancing method for investigating conformational ensembles of proteins (Twomey et al., 2015; Mehra et al., 2020; Bonilla and Kieft, 2022; Noble et al., 2018; Karplus and McCammon, 2002). Pairing individual structural models from cryo-EM with MD simulations has recently given valuable insight into the activation process of G proteins by an activated GPCR (Papasergi-Scott et al., 2023). However, flexible membrane proteins may adopt a vast number of conformational states constituting a great obstacle to current classification approaches.

Most commonly used NMR methods effectively explore structural and dynamic features of small- and medium-sized proteins, typically up to 300 amino acid residues (Clore and Gronenborn, 1991; Opella and Marassi, 2004; Kaptein and Wagner, 2015). Site-specific fluorine NMR extends these capabilities to larger proteins, also enabling observation of dynamic events spanning from nanoseconds to seconds (Prosser and Alonzi, 2023; Danielson and Falke, 1996). Computational integration of NMR data remains challenging due to the added difficulty of assigning resonances to specific residues. Novel, detector-based methods elegantly integrate NMR timescale information with computational modeling (Smith et al., 2023), but access to large amounts of functional sample as well as acquisition and processing times remain limiting factors.

FRET detects conformational changes in the range of 30–80 Å and, in combination with single particle analysis (smFRET), provides access to conformational heterogeneity and exchange dynamics (Ha, 2001; Agam et al., 2023; Gregorio et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2024). However, fluorophores represent relatively large, flexible, and hydrophobic probes, which limits spatial resolution or may disturb the local structure and dynamics (Sánchez-Rico et al., 2017; Peter et al., 2022).

In this review, we focus on EPR spectroscopy, which allows the investigation of protein dynamics across a broad range of timescales (from picoseconds to seconds or longer) with few restrictions on sample conditions. The application of pulse EPR spectroscopy adds further capabilities in terms of spatial resolution and accurate quantification of individual conformational states. A continuously growing number of computational tools are becoming available assisting with the integration of EPR spectroscopic data and providing a detailed picture of structural dynamics underlying protein function.

Site-directed spin labeling EPR spectroscopy

EPR spectroscopy comprises a large toolbox of methods enabling the exploration of protein systems containing paramagnetic centers. Since unpaired electrons are usually depleted during protein expression, stable radicals need to be introduced for example via site-directed spin labeling in order to obtain an EPR signal (Torricella et al., 2021; Pierro and Drescher, 2023; Jana et al., 2023). Several continuous wave (CW) EPR methods have been developed to study the different timescales of protein dynamics, and gain insight into structure and population of conformational states within an ensemble (Table 1). In the following, we limit our considerations to studies with nitroxides, which are by far the most commonly used spin labels. However, especially for distance measurements several other spin label side chains have been developed, each exhibiting benefits and drawbacks compared to nitroxides that are discussed elsewhere (Fielding et al., 2014). The CW EPR lineshape (first derivative of the absorption spectrum) is highly sensitive to spin label dynamics on the 100 ps to 100 ns timescale which is strongly influenced by structure and dynamics of the protein (Hubbell et al., 1996; Campbell et al., 2022; Mchaourab et al., 1996; Fichou et al., 2019; Pierro et al., 2020). Coexistence of several conformational states leads to superimposed, complex EPR spectra. While a comprehensive theory of spin label motion exists, the interpretation of CW EPR lineshapes remains challenging due to a large number of parameters. In particular cases, when the selection of fitting parameters during lineshape analysis is ambiguous, statistical analysis becomes necessary to assess the likelihood of one parameter set over another (Francis et al., 2012; Etienne et al., 2023; Lindemann et al., 2020).

Table 1. Summarizing information on electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopic techniques.

Method	Features	References	
Dynamics (timescale)	Structure(resolution)	Population	Computational analysis	
CW EPR	Yes
(10−10 to 10−7s)	Yes, via scanning
(topology)	Yes, ≤3 conformations	Semi-empirical and lineshape analysis	Marsh, 1981; Hubbell and Altenbach, 1994; Columbus and Hubbell, 2002	
ST EPR	Yes
(10−7 to 10−3 s)	No	No	Heuristic analysis	Hyde and Dalton, 1972	
TR EPR	Yes
(>10−3 s)	No	Yes	Lineshape analysis	Farahbakhsh et al., 1993	
DEER	No	Yes
(<10−10 m)	Yes	Parametric and non-parametric fitting models	Jeschke, 2012	
ENDOR	No	Yes
(>10−11 m)	Yes	Lineshape analysis	Lubitz et al., 2002	
SR EPR	Yes,
(10−6 to 10−5 s)	No	Yes, ≤2 conformations	Exponential fitting	Bridges et al., 2010	

Further information on protein topology can be obtained via power saturation CW EPR spectroscopy, which is often combined with spin label scanning. Here, spin labels are introduced to successive sites along a sequence of amino acids and the influence of paramagnetic substances on the saturation behavior is evaluated (Altenbach et al., 1990; Hubbell et al., 2003). In general, full seqeunce coverage with spin labels is desired to uncover even subtle changes in structure and dynamics of the protein segment of interest. However, evaluating or comparing specific secondary structure models with different periodicities, such as α-helix or β-sheet, requires only a strongly reduced set of spin labeling sites. Saturation transfer (ST) EPR and time-resolved (TR) EPR represent two other methods utilizing continuous microwave radiation, extending sensitivity to the timescales of microseconds to milliseconds (Hyde and Dalton, 1972; Hyde and Thomas, 1973; Schwarz et al., 1990; Rayes et al., 2011) and millisecond to hours (Steinhoff et al., 1994; Farahbakhsh et al., 1993; Knierim et al., 2007), respectively. While several approaches for the analysis of ST EPR spectra have been developed (Hustedt and Beth, 2004), these represent purely heuristic methods and will therefore not be discussed in more detail. The dynamic processes picked up by TR EPR are too slow to be modeled using all-atom modeling techniques and are also outside the focus of this review. Notably, all EPR methods mentioned so far exhibit little to no restrictions on the experimental conditions, including a wide range of temperatures or different environments (solution, membranes, living cells, etc.).

The power of EPR spectroscopy is strongly expanded by the application of microwave pulses (pulse EPR spectroscopy). Four-pulse double electron–electron resonance energy transfer (DEER), also known as pulsed electron–electron double resonance (PELDOR), is a pulsed EPR spectroscopic technique usually performed on frozen solutions, in order to resolve distances between two spin labels at sub-Angstrom resolution. This method captures interspin distances ranging from 1.5 to 8.0 nm, and even up to 16.0 nm in fully deuterated samples (Peter et al., 2022; Jeschke, 2012). Moreover, DEER experiments elegantly connect structure and thermodynamics of proteins by resolving the conformational ensemble in probability distance distributions (Elgeti and Hubbell, 2021; Evans et al., 2020; Dawidowski and Cafiso, 2013; Wingler et al., 2019). This makes DEER the prime method for computational integration with structural biology which will be discussed in detail. Electron-nuclear double resonance (ENDOR) assesses hyperfine interactions among magnetic nuclei and paramagnetic centers within solute samples cooled to cryogenic temperatures. It can be implemented as both CW and pulse technique (Lubitz et al., 2002; Weber et al., 2001). ENDOR is effective for revealing the structures of specific parts of protein molecules, achieving atomic-level accuracy in distances below 1.5 nm (Lendzian et al., 1996). Recent work has demonstrated that using fluorinated amino acids (19F-ENDOR), in particular in combination with Gadolinium spin labels, extends the upper distance limit to above 2 nm (Bogdanov et al., 2024). Several computational methods have been developed to simulate ENDOR spectra, however, integration with structural models has not been achieved yet (Meyer et al., 2020; Meyer et al., 2022; Stoll and Schweiger, 2006). Lastly, saturation recovery EPR (SR EPR) represents another pulsed EPR technique used to gain insights into protein dynamics. It enables the resolution of dynamic events on the low to intermediate microsecond timescale which remains difficult to access with other methods (Bridges et al., 2010; Sarewicz et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2015). However, so far no computational approaches for the structural integration of SR EPR have been developed.

Analysis and interpretation of experimental CW EPR data

The sensitivity of CW EPR to molecular motion arises from the incomplete averaging of anisotropic magnetic interactions leading to characteristic lineshapes.

Semi-empirical analysis methods

Derive parameters of molecular motion directly from the lineshape. Columbus and Hubbell showed that the distance between the minimum and maximum of the CW EPR lineshape, the center linewidth δ (Figure 2A), is strongly related with the correlation time and order parameter of the observed motion (Columbus and Hubbell, 2002). Also, the effective hyperfine splitting A’zz, as assessed by the distance between the outer minima can be used to determine the correlation time or the polarity of spin label environment (Freed, 1976; Altenbach and Hubbell, 2015). Axially symmetric systems such as spin-labeled lipids of a membrane bilayer can be analyzed using the parallel (A∥) and perpendicular (A⟂), which significantly simplifies the analysis of the experimental results (Subczynski et al., 2010).

Figure 2. Computational approaches for the analysis and interpretations of continuous wave (CW) electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) data.

(A) Semi-empirical analysis of the CW EPR lineshape provides insight into the rate of motion (δ), polarity (A’zz) of the spin label environment, parallel (A॥), and perpendicular (A⊥) compounds of CW EPR spectra of spin-labeled membrane bilayer lipids. (B) Lineshape analysis provides access to motional parameters and populations of individual equilibrium conformations. (C) Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations may explore the entire conformational landscape of a protein and provide data to simulate the CW EPR spectrum. The latter is then compared with the experiment. (D) RosettaEPR approach uses results from single and double mutant CW EPR experiments to derive distance constraints for subsequent conformational modeling.

Lineshape analysis

Motional models for analyzing CW EPR lineshapes computationally exist at varying degrees of complexity. Most widely used models for the description of intermediate to slow spin label dynamics solve the stochastic Liouville equation (SLE) and assume microscopic order and macroscopic disorder (MOMD, Figure 2B; Meirovitch et al., 1984; Budil et al., 2006). Such models can include ordering potentials in the lineshape analysis to characterize the amplitude of molecular motions. However, while intricate motional models can be implemented, distinct parameter sets may result in equally good mathematical fits. To this end, strongly correlated fitting parameters indicate that the complexity of the model (i.e., number of parameters) should be reduced to avoid overfitting (Altenbach and Budil, 2024). Motion faster than 1 ns leads to complete averaging of anisotropic magnetic interactions. This simplifies the analysis and an effective Hamiltonian can be used (Hubbell and McConnell, 1971).

Analysis via lineshape simulation includes iterative adjustment of model parameters to fit the experimental spectra. Such methods are implemented in the programs EasySpin, NLSL, MultiComponent, Spinach, Simlabel, and cwepr (Stoll and Schweiger, 2006; Altenbach and Budil, 2024; Budil et al., 1996; Altenbach and Hubbell, 2024; Schröder and Biskup, 2022). These software toolkits require relatively low computational resources and have a user-friendly graphical interface. Lineshape simulations offer valuable insights into the protein local structure, dynamics, topology, conformational changes, and interactions between binding partners. Notably, when a protein conformational change affects spin label dynamics sufficiently leading distinct lineshapes, lineshape analysis can disentangle such multicomponent spectra (Figure 2B) and thus describe conformational equilibria (Altenbach and Budil, 2024). However, CW EPR spectra represent a convolution of spin label and protein dynamics (Mchaourab et al., 1996) and when spin label and protein motions occur on similar timescales, lineshape analysis is reaching its limits. In such cases, integrative analysis approaches incorporating molecular modeling will provide a possible alternative.

MD-based approaches for CW EPR analysis

The majority of integrative methods for the analysis of CW EPR data rely on MD simulations of spin-labeled proteins. MD-SLE (Figure 2C) approach combines short MD simulations with solving the SLE to analyze CW EPR data (Budil et al., 2006; Stoica, 2004). Short MD trajectories corrected for translation and rotation of the protein are assumed to describe only spin label motion. Such trajectories serve as inputs for SLE-solving lineshape analysis. Combining MD-SLE with high-field CW EPR experiments, where protein motions are assumed frozen, further validates the separate treatment of protein and spin label dynamics (Barnes et al., 1999).

Two other approaches construct simplified models of the spin labels dynamics from short MD trajectories, namely hindered Brownian dynamics (MD-HBD, Figure 2C) and hidden Markov models (MD-HMM). These methods generate long-scale stochastic trajectories of spin label dynamics. Stochastic trajectories are then used to compute the trajectory of magnetization, also known as free-induction decay (FID). From the FID, the CW EPR spectrum is reconstructed via Fourier transform (Martin et al., 2019; Steinhoff and Hubbell, 1996; Beier and Steinhoff, 2006; White et al., 2007; Sezer et al., 2008a; Sezer et al., 2009). Besides MD-HBD and MD-HMM, there is also the Direct-MD approach (Figure 2C), which is becoming increasingly popular. It models the magnetization trajectory from longer MD trajectories of spin-labeled proteins without employing stochastic modeling of spin label dynamics (Martin et al., 2019; Oganesyan, 2011; Tyrrell and Oganesyan, 2013).

MD-HBD and MD-HMM have proven effective for calculating the CW EPR spectrum of small- and medium-sized proteins that adopt a single conformational state. However, modeling multiple conformations of large- and medium-sized proteins requires extensive MD simulations lasting several microseconds or longer. While this was still challenging a few years ago, the advent of GPU-based computing made such simulations available to a larger community. We suggest that MD-based approaches, which effectively sample the conformational states of spin labels, should be integrated with deep learning techniques, such as AlphaFold2, RoseTTAFold, or ESMFold (Jumper et al., 2021; Baek et al., 2021; Krishna et al., 2024; Jeliazkov et al., 2023), to enhance conformational sampling of proteins. Structural models of protein conformations produced by such neural networks should be validated and refined through replicas of MD simulations including spin labels and by comparison with experiments (Baek et al., 2021; Sala et al., 2023). To this end, the benefit of combining MD simulations with deep learning is twofold: providing experimentally validated all-atom structural information while assisting with the interpretation of complex CW EPR spectra.

Rosetta is a software toolbox with a wide range of applications, including molecular design, folding, docking, and modeling tools (Leman et al., 2020). Rosetta uses a library of protein fragments and employs Monte-Carlo assembly to construct structural models of protein conformations. These resulting models are then evaluated with a physics-based scoring function. RosettaNMR represents the first algorithms for the de novo prediction of protein structures, which integrated experimental NMR data. This was the basis for the development of the RosettaEPR. RosettaEPR integrates interspin distances into the modeling process, which are derived from exchange broadening via CW EPR of doubly spin-labeled protein (Alexander et al., 2008). The distance range accessible using this approach is limited to <~25 Å. Thus, it should be noted that each line-broadening analysis requires three CW EPR experiments. One experiment with the doubly spin-labeled mutant, and two experiments with each individual single mutant of the spin pair (Farrens et al., 1996; Rabenstein and Shin, 1995; Altenbach et al., 2001). In summary, RosettaEPR represents a computationally efficient approach for conformational modeling, which includes experimental data and does not require a structural template of the protein. However, in contrast to MD approaches, Rosetta does not allow for the observation of time-dependent conformational changes.

Integration of distance information derived from experimental DEER data

Pulsed dipolar spectroscopy (PDS) in combination with site-directed spin labeling (SDSL) gives access to distance distributions between two coupled spins. While several different PDS pulse sequences exist, the most commonly used method is 4-pulse deadtime-free DEER, for which recently application guidelines have been put forward (Pannier et al., 2000; Schiemann et al., 2021). Experimental DEER data consist of time-dependent spin echo intensities (dipolar evolution), which can be translated into interspin distance distributions. In addition to the dipolar interaction of intramolecular spins, DEER signals also contain intermolecular contributions (background), which must either be included in the analysis or subtracted a priori. Several different analysis methods have been developed, which are concisely reviewed in the following. A more detailed introduction including benchmark tests can be found elsewhere (Russell et al., 2022).

Model-free analysis

Model-free analysis of DEER data presents a mathematically ill-posed problem that is typically addressed by Tikhonov regularization which essentially smooths the distance distribution. Adequate smoothness is typically chosen via the L-curve criterion of the regularization parameter, but other methods such as the Akaike information criterion corrected or the Bayesian information criterion exist, and determine the level of detail observed in the analyzed distance distributions (Edwards and Stoll, 2018). While a minimum width of distance peaks makes physical sense, taking into account the conformational entropy of the labels and the protein, the assumption of equal widths for all distance peaks is inconsistent with the heterogeneous picture of a conformational state (Figure 1). The evaluation of populations, one of the main virtues of DEER, is complicated because it requires a posteriori fitting of the distance distribution to a linear combination of parametric distributions with quantifiable area, such as Gaussians.

Model-based analyses

Model-based analyses, such as Gaussian mixture models, assume that DEER distributions represent a superposition of individual distance peaks. Each peak has a specific shape that is described by parameters such as mean position, peak width, and amplitude. This approach dramatically reduces the number of fitting parameters during analysis and provides direct access to populations of individual peaks as well as confidence intervals of each fitting parameter. In addition, simultaneous (global) analysis of multiple DEER datasets of the same spin pair recorded under different conditions further increases the confidence in parameter values such as peak positions, populations, or background parameters (Hustedt et al., 2021; Jeschke et al., 2006; Khan et al., 2023).

Both Tikhonov regularization and parametric models are included in widely used software packages, such as the Python toolbox DEERlab or DeerAnalysis (Fábregas Ibáñez et al., 2020; Stein et al., 2015). More recently, DEER analysis methods using deep learning have been developed. These tools include neural networks trained on a large dataset of synthetic DEER data (Worswick et al., 2018) and show comparable or even improved reliability (Casiraghi et al., 2024). The most prominent example is DeerNet, which is included in the DeerAnalysis2022 and Spinach software packages (ETH Zurich, 2023; Hogben et al., 2011).

One main challenge in interpreting DEER results is peak assignment. In principle, each distance peak is due to a specific protein and label conformation. Thus, if a peak appears shifted, for example under altered ligand conditions, the origin of this shift could be due to a change of the protein or label conformation, or a combination of both. One way to tackle this problem is to select surface-exposed spin labeling sites. This way, when the protein changes conformation, the ensemble of spin label rotamers remains unaffected. Surface exposure can be verified using CW EPR as the lineshape provides a sensitive monitor of spin label dynamics. Once this condition is met, the DEER analysis can be reduced to conformational states and populations of the protein, thus directly linking protein structure and thermodynamics.

PDS methods such as DEER depend on two paramagnetic centers being in proximity, and thus can be used to evaluate and characterize protein oligomerization. Studies evaluating the monomer/dimer equilibrium, the dimer architecture, and functionality have been conducted all of which utilizing distance information and modulation depth parameters obtained from DEER experiments (Hilger et al., 2005; Bergdoll et al., 2018; Pliotas et al., 2012). In cases when more than two spins are present per nano-object, data analysis needs to be amended by power scaling to avoid artificial ‘ghost distances’ (Evans et al., 2020; von Hagens et al., 2013; Khan et al., 2023).

Notably, membrane proteins are commonly investigated in a detergent solubilized form to prevent oligomer formation. Generally, the different properties of detergent and lipid molecules lead to altered spin label dynamics which are easily picked up by CW EPR (Flores Jiménez et al., 2011). Interestingly, the changed label dynamics do not lead to dramatic structural alterations and the DEER distances in different systems are often quite similar. Obviously, this is not necessarily true for the position of conformational equilibria, which are often sensitive to the environmental parameters such as lipid or detergent composition (Van Eps et al., 2017).

Methods for simultaneous modeling of protein and spin label dynamics

Several molecular modeling techniques have been developed to simulate the dynamics of proteins and spin labels. They provide atomistic models of protein conformations that can explain sparse DEER experimental data. Molecular modeling approaches simulate protein and spin labels either simultaneously (combining approaches) or separately (discriminating approaches).

Most combining approaches (Figure 3B), such as restrained-ensemble MD (reMD), ensemble-biased metadynamics (EBMetaD), and bias-resampling ensemble refinement (BRER), steer MD simulations of spin-labeled proteins toward a conformational ensemble that accurately reproduces the experimental interspin distance distributions. This is achieved by introducing a scalable bias potential into the modeling system. The addition of a bias potential by these three approaches is based on the principle of maximum entropy. This principle implies the addition of a minimal bias to the MD simulation that is capable of bringing the modeled ensemble into agreement with the experiment (Pitera and Chodera, 2012). Biased MD simulations can use both full-atom and simplified (dummy) representations of spin labels (Figure 3A). In addition, in certain cases, such as distances between rigid spin labels, it may be feasible to simplify the system by modeling the unlabeled protein and replacing interspin distances with distances between Cβ or C⍺ atoms (Hays et al., 2019).

Figure 3. Computational methods for double electron–electron resonance (DEER) data analysis and integration.

(A, B) Combining approaches simultaneously model the dynamics of both a protein and spin labels. Full-atom and dummy representations of spin labels are possible. (C, D) Discriminating approaches investigate conformations of a protein and spin labels separately. (A) Unbiased molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of a spin-labeled protein. (B) Biased MD approaches add biasing potential to the simulating system according to the principle of maximum entropy. The potential is gradually adjusted based on the degree of agreement between simulated and experimental data, including distance distributions (reMD, EBMetaD, and BRER) and echo decay time traces (restrained average dynamics, RAD). (C) Static approaches explore the conformations of either proteins (top) using statistical and physics-based methods, or spin labels (bottom) using accessible volume (AV, yellow arrows), rotamer library approach (RLA, dark blue arrows), and off-rotamer sampling (red arrows). (D) Dynamic discriminating approaches use MD-based techniques to investigate the conformational landscapes of either spin labels (left, CREST/MD) or a protein (right, unbiased MD). In the latter case, both full-atom and coarse-grained representations of the protein are possible.

ReMD (Figure 3B) performs a user-defined number of simulation replicas for the spin labels, while the rest of the system, including protein and solvent, is modeled only once. This method operates with a global bias potential that is distributed across all modeling replicas (Roux and Islam, 2013; Islam et al., 2013; Islam and Roux, 2015). In contrast, EBMetaD is a single-replica metadynamics-based approach designed to bias a user-defined variable, such as an interatomic distance, by incorporating an adjustable bias potential (Marinelli and Faraldo-Gómez, 2015; Hustedt et al., 2018). BRER simulates multiple replicas of the biased MD to adjust the ensemble distribution of a particular geometric property (e.g., interspin distance) to match the experimentally derived data (Hays et al., 2019). The restrained average dynamics (RAD) technique (Figure 3B) also follows the principle of maximum entropy. A key difference between RAD and reMD, EBMetaD or BRER is that MD simulations are directly driven by raw dipolar evolutions rather than distance distributions (Marinelli and Fiorin, 2019). In particular, RAD can model both single and multiple MD simulation replicas.

Choosing a meaningful and effective bias potential, and analyzing biased MD simulations requires experience. Users with less experience in performing MD simulations with non-standard potentials may opt for unbiased MD methods instead (Figure 3A).

In principle, unbiased MD simulations (Figure 3A), can provide a representation of all protein conformations within the ensemble. Quantification of the individual conformations corresponding to the equilibrium populations in an experiment is difficult to access, especially for slow conformational transitions (Grossfield and Zuckerman, 2009; Sawle and Ghosh, 2016). Similar to biased MD simulations, both full-atom and dummy spin label representations are viable options for unbiased MD simulations (Islam et al., 2013). Unbiased MD simulations require more computational time than biased ones to overcome energy barriers between conformations (Figure 1). To enhance conformational sampling in unbiased MD simulations, multiple replicas starting from different geometries of both the protein and spin labels can be used. Another strategy is to implement different initial velocities in multiple MD replicas (Rice and Brünger, 1994).

To set up a molecular model for conducting biased or unbiased MD simulations, including all-atom or dummy description of spin labels, we recommend the Charmm-GUI module called PDB Manipulator (Jo et al., 2014). In addition, the Charmm-GUI offers many options for constructing and parameterizing membrane proteins such as receptors and transporters in various lipid systems. Lipid mono- and bilayers, nanodiscs, micelles and bicelles, lipid hexagonal phase systems, are available. In each case, the lipid composition is customizable (Feng et al., 2023; Qi et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2024).

Methods for separate modeling of protein and spin label dynamics

Discriminating approaches model protein and spin label conformations independently using different methods. We divide discriminating approaches into static (Figure 3C) and dynamic ones (Figure 3D).

Static approaches (Figure 3C) rely on statistical data or physical knowledge to model new variants of molecular geometry and evaluate their reliability (score). Static approaches to modeling spin label conformations work with their full-atom representations during the sampling process. The rotamers of spin labels in the resulting sampled set can be represented by dummy or coarse-grained (CG) models. Static approaches to modeling spin labels include the rotamer library approach (RLA) with its modification called off-rotamer sampling, and the Monte-Carlo accessible volume (AV) sampling (Tessmer et al., 2022). Both RLA and off-rotamer sampling work with a pre-calculated rotamer library, while AV starts with a single spin label structure. In all three approaches, spin label structures are virtually attached to specific labeling sites on the protein structure. The crucial step is the selection of spin label conformations that do not lead to steric clashes (overlapping van der Waals radii) with protein atoms. The main result of all three methods is the ensemble of spin label conformations that can be reliably accommodated at selected label sites. The RLA approach is implemented in the MMM and RosettaEPR programs, and in Python packages such as DEER-PREdict and chiLife (Jeschke, 2018; Alexander et al., 2013; Tesei et al., 2021; Tessmer and Stoll, 2023). AV is implemented in MtsslWizard, mtsslSuite, PRONOX software, and chiLife (Tessmer and Stoll, 2023; Hagelueken et al., 2012; Hagelueken et al., 2013; Hatmal et al., 2012).

Static approaches to modeling protein conformations include statistics-based approaches (neural networks) and a physics-based approach. Neural networks for modeling protein conformations, such as AlphaFold3, AlphaFold2, RoseTTAFold2, ESMFold, OmegaFold, and EquiFold are becoming increasingly popular (Jumper et al., 2021; Jeliazkov et al., 2023; Abramson et al., 2024; Baek et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2022). The main reason is that neural networks allow the rapid generation of multiple and diverse conformational models in a short time. However, currently developed neural networks are not necessarily consistent with the laws of physics (Baek and Baker, 2022). Therefore, the results should be further refined using physics-based approaches, such as MD simulations, a dynamic approach that will be considered further, or the static approach implemented in the Rosetta toolkit (Leman et al., 2020). Rosetta’s scoring function includes physics-based terms that ensure that the modeled conformations would better reproduce the real geometries. Protein conformations obtained by modeling with Rosetta can be integrated with the RLA approach for modeling spin label conformations described above. Note RosettaDEER, which uses a dummy representation of the rotamer library in its pipeline for efficient modeling of spin-labeled protein conformations in agreement with experimental data (Del Alamo et al., 2021).

Dynamic discriminating approaches combine methods that use MD simulations to explore the conformations of either the spin label or the protein (Figure 3D). One such technique for effectively modeling spin label conformations is CREST/MD. In a first step, the CREST software samples low-energy conformations of spin labels attached to the specific sites of the protein (Spicher et al., 2020; Pracht et al., 2020). It then performs multiple replicas of short equilibrating MD simulations of the protein labeled with the previously selected lowest energy spin label conformations. In this way, CREST/MD efficiently explores the conformational space of spin labels. Another group of dynamic discriminating approaches performs long MD simulations of an unlabeled protein. To enhance conformational sampling, simplified CG protein models with appropriate modeling parameters (force fields) can be used. In CG models, only a few particles represent each amino acid residue of the protein, which reduces the computational cost but also reduces the accuracy of the calculations (Monticelli et al., 2008). Modern CG force fields such as Martini 3 and SIRAH do not include parameters for spin labels (Souza et al., 2021; Klein et al., 2023). Thus, the simulation frames of the resulting MD trajectories must be supplemented with, for instance, the RLA approach to attach realistic spin label rotamers. Subsequently, spin–spin distances are calculated, and the resulting distributions are compared with the DEER experiment (Wingler et al., 2019).

Outlook

Distance distributions are the easiest way to integrate sparse EPR data into computational structural biology. Such distributions can be derived from different EPR approaches, in particular CW EPR line-broadening or PDS such as DEER, and compared directly with MD simulations. In this way, MD trajectories can provide us with atomistic structures and dynamics of protein conformations observed in experiment.

There are two major challenges in performing such MD simulations. First, as shown in Figure 1, protein conformations are often separated by high energy barriers, resulting in slow (µs to ms) transitions. This leads to high computational costs and very long simulation times (often weeks or months even on supercomputers), especially for unbiased MD simulations. The second challenge is to obtain reliable simulation parameters (force fields) for the attached spin labels. Force field parameterization is an active area of research with no general solutions yet. Existing tools may not be suitable for a particular task or may be closed source (Jo et al., 2014; Boothroyd et al., 2023). To address the first challenge, we propose to combine MD tools with deep learning approaches. Neural networks can provide a diverse set of protein conformations that serve as starting points for multiple independent and shorter MD replicas. This may improve the efficiency of conformational landscape sampling. The second challenge can be addressed in two ways: either by avoiding the need for parameterization altogether by using discriminating approaches (Figure 3C, D), or by exploring the literature-validated parameters of spin labels. Parameters exist for spin labels such as MTSSL, PROXYL-MTS, BtnRG-TP, Cu2+-nitrilotriacetic, and Cu2+-iminodiacetic acid (Sezer et al., 2008b; Qi et al., 2020; Bogetti et al., 2020). Alternatively, the parameters for the attached spin labels can be determined independently. In this case, special attention should be paid to the calculation of atomic charges (He et al., 2022). We propose the idea of a database of spin label parameters, compatible with commonly used force fields for proteins, and freely available to the research community.

An alternative method for modeling protein conformations uses DEER distances to guide the modeling process. Here, we refer here to rapidly developing deep learning methods, such as AlphaLink and AFEXplorer, which are capable of incorporating experimentally derived geometric constraints directly into the workflow (Stahl et al., 2023; Xie et al., 2023). Although originally developed for photo-crosslinking mass spectrometry data, AlphaLink can be adapted to DEER distance distributions as descriptors. Such neural networks sample the conformational landscape very efficiently, easily generating hundreds or more models. It is imperative to validate such conformational models using physics-based methods such as MD simulations.

Currently, the only method available to integrate CW EPR data with molecular modeling techniques is RosettaEPR (Alexander et al., 2008). It combines the results of EPR experiments performed on two single cysteine mutants and one double cysteine mutant to calculate interspin distance distributions. The main advantage of this approach is its applicability to physiologically relevant temperatures. Computational approaches that integrate the dynamic information encoded in CW EPR lineshapes with structural biology are still lacking. We suggest that data such as the Heisenberg exchange rate or heuristic accessibility (Altenbach et al., 1989; Altenbach et al., 2005) could be converted to accessible surface area, which then can be used as a sparse descriptor to bias deep learning methods such as AlphaFold3, AlphaFold2, RoseTTAFold2, and ESMFold (Jumper et al., 2021; Jeliazkov et al., 2023; Abramson et al., 2024; Baek et al., 2023). Another possible application of experimental CW EPR data is the filtering and validation of structural models predicted by neural networks or observed in MD simulations (Baek and Baker, 2022).

In summary, we highlight the potential applications of using sparse EPR data for atomistic modeling of protein conformations. We hope that this concise and high-level introduction to the field of integrative modeling using EPR constraints will help interested researchers from other research areas to incorporate these methods into their own research and further advance the field.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 1423 #421152132 to Matthias Elgeti.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002347 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung SECAI 57616814 to Julia Belyaeva.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft TRR386 #514664767 to Matthias Elgeti.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dilara Öğütcü, Alexander Zlobin, and Mahdi Bagherpoor Helabad for helpful discussions.

Additional information

Competing interests

Author contributions

No competing interests declared.

Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing.

Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing.
==== Refs
References

Abramson J Adler J Dunger J Evans R Green T Pritzel A Ronneberger O Willmore L Ballard AJ Bambrick J Bodenstein SW Evans DA Hung C-C O’Neill M Reiman D Tunyasuvunakool K Wu Z Žemgulytė A Arvaniti E Beattie C Bertolli O Bridgland A Cherepanov A Congreve M Cowen-Rivers AI Cowie A Figurnov M Fuchs FB Gladman H Jain R Khan YA Low CMR Perlin K Potapenko A Savy P Singh S Stecula A Thillaisundaram A Tong C Yakneen S Zhong ED Zielinski M Žídek A Bapst V Kohli P Jaderberg M Hassabis D Jumper JM 2024 Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3 Nature 630 493 500 10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w 38718835
Agam G Gebhardt C Popara M Mächtel R Folz J Ambrose B Chamachi N Chung SY Craggs TD de Boer M Grohmann D Ha T Hartmann A Hendrix J Hirschfeld V Hübner CG Hugel T Kammerer D Kang H-S Kapanidis AN Krainer G Kramm K Lemke EA Lerner E Margeat E Martens K Michaelis J Mitra J Moya Muñoz GG Quast RB Robb NC Sattler M Schlierf M Schneider J Schröder T Sefer A Tan PS Thurn J Tinnefeld P van Noort J Weiss S Wendler N Zijlstra N Barth A Seidel CAM Lamb DC Cordes T 2023 Reliability and accuracy of single-molecule FRET studies for characterization of structural dynamics and distances in proteins Nature Methods 20 523 535 10.1038/s41592-023-01807-0 36973549
Alexander N Al-Mestarihi A Bortolus M Mchaourab H Meiler J 2008 De novo high-resolution protein structure determination from sparse spin-labeling EPR data Structure 16 181 195 10.1016/j.str.2007.11.015 18275810
Alexander NS Stein RA Koteiche HA Kaufmann KW Mchaourab HS Meiler J 2013 RosettaEPR: Rotamer library for spin label structure and dynamics PLOS ONE 8 e72851 10.1371/journal.pone.0072851 24039810
Allison JR 2017 Using simulation to interpret experimental data in terms of protein conformational ensembles Current Opinion in Structural Biology 43 79 87 10.1016/j.sbi.2016.11.018 27940377
Altenbach C Froncisz W Hyde JS Hubbell WL 1989 Conformation of spin-labeled melittin at membrane surfaces investigated by pulse saturation recovery and continuous wave power saturation electron paramagnetic resonance Biophysical Journal 56 1183 1191 10.1016/S0006-3495(89)82765-1 2558734
Altenbach C Marti T Khorana HG Hubbell WL 1990 Transmembrane protein structure: Spin labeling of bacteriorhodopsin mutants Science 248 1088 1092 10.1126/science.2160734 2160734
Altenbach C Oh KJ Trabanino RJ Hideg K Hubbell WL 2001 Estimation of inter-residue distances in spin labeled proteins at physiological temperatures: Experimental strategies and practical limitations Biochemistry 40 15471 15482 10.1021/bi011544w 11747422
Altenbach C Froncisz W Hemker R McHaourab H Hubbell WL 2005 Accessibility of nitroxide side chains: Absolute Heisenberg exchange rates from power saturation EPR Biophysical Journal 89 2103 2112 10.1529/biophysj.105.059063 15994891
Altenbach C Hubbell WL 2015 Exploring structure, dynamics, and topology of nitroxide spin-labeled proteins using continuous-wave electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy Methods Enzymol 564 59 100 10.1016/bs.mie.2015.08.006 26477248
Altenbach C Budil D 2024 Analyzing CW EPR spectra of nitroxide labeled macromolecules Applied Magnetic Resonance 55 159 186 10.1007/s00723-023-01610-2
Altenbach C Hubbell WL 2024 EPR software 0.1 Biochemistry https://www.biochemistry.ucla.edu/Faculty/Hubbell/software.html
Baek M DiMaio F Anishchenko I Dauparas J Ovchinnikov S Lee GR Wang J Cong Q Kinch LN Schaeffer RD Millán C Park H Adams C Glassman CR DeGiovanni A Pereira JH Rodrigues AV van Dijk AA Ebrecht AC Opperman DJ Sagmeister T Buhlheller C Pavkov-Keller T Rathinaswamy MK Dalwadi U Yip CK Burke JE Garcia KC Grishin NV Adams PD Read RJ Baker D 2021 Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network Science 373 871 876 10.1126/science.abj8754 34282049
Baek M Baker D 2022 Deep learning and protein structure modeling Nature Methods 19 13 14 10.1038/s41592-021-01360-8 35017724
Baek M Anishchenko I Humphreys IR Cong Q Baker D DiMaio F 2023 Efficient and accurate prediction of protein structure using roseTTAFold2 bioRxiv 10.1101/2023.05.24.542179
Barnes JP Liang Z Mchaourab HS Freed JH Hubbell WL 1999 A multifrequency electron spin resonance study of T4 lysozyme dynamics Biophysical Journal 76 3298 3306 10.1016/S0006-3495(99)77482-5 10354455
Beier C Steinhoff HJ 2006 A structure-based simulation approach for electron paramagnetic resonance spectra using molecular and stochastic dynamics simulations Biophysical Journal 91 2647 2664 10.1529/biophysj.105.080051 16844740
Bergdoll LA Lerch MT Patrick JW Belardo K Altenbach C Bisignano P Laganowsky A Grabe M Hubbell WL Abramson J 2018 Protonation state of glutamate 73 regulates the formation of a specific dimeric association of mVDAC1 PNAS 115 E172 E179 10.1073/pnas.1715464115 29279396
Bogdanov A Frydman V Seal M Rapatskiy L Schnegg A Zhu W Iron M Gronenborn AM Goldfarb D 2024 Extending the range of distances accessible by 19F electron-nuclear double resonance in proteins using high-spin Gd(III) labels Journal of the American Chemical Society 146 6157 6167 10.1021/jacs.3c13745 38393979
Bogetti X Ghosh S Gamble Jarvi A Wang J Saxena S 2020 Molecular dynamics simulations based on newly developed force field parameters for Cu2+ spin labels provide insights into double-histidine-based double electron-electron resonance The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B 124 2788 2797 10.1021/acs.jpcb.0c00739 32181671
Bonilla SL Kieft JS 2022 The promise of cryo-EM to explore RNA structural dynamics Journal of Molecular Biology 434 167802 10.1016/j.jmb.2022.167802 36049551
Boothroyd S Behara PK Madin OC Hahn DF Jang H Gapsys V Wagner JR Horton JT Dotson DL Thompson MW Maat J Gokey T Wang L-P Cole DJ Gilson MK Chodera JD Bayly CI Shirts MR Mobley DL 2023 Development and benchmarking of open force field 2.0.0: The sage small molecule force field Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 19 3251 3275 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00039 37167319
Bridges MD Hideg K Hubbell WL 2010 Resolving conformational and rotameric exchange in spin-labeled proteins using saturation recovery EPR Applied Magnetic Resonance 37 363 10.1007/s00723-009-0079-2 20157634
Brown TP Santa DE Berger BA Kong L Wittenberg NJ Im W 2024 CHARMM GUI membrane builder for oxidized phospholipid membrane modeling and simulation Current Opinion in Structural Biology 86 102813 10.1016/j.sbi.2024.102813 38598982
Budil DE Lee S Saxena S Freed JH 1996 Nonlinear-least-squares analysis of slow-motion EPR spectra in one and two dimensions using a modified levenberg–marquardt algorithm Journal of Magnetic Resonance, Series A 120 155 189 10.1006/jmra.1996.0113
Budil DE Sale KL Khairy KA Fajer PG 2006 Calculating slow-motional electron paramagnetic resonance spectra from molecular dynamics using a diffusion operator approach The Journal of Physical Chemistry. A 110 3703 3713 10.1021/jp054738k 16526654
Campbell C Faleel FDM Scheyer MW Haralu S Williams PL Carbo WD Wilson-Taylor AS Patel NH Sanders CR Lorigan GA Sahu ID 2022 Comparing the structural dynamics of the human KCNE3 in reconstituted micelle and lipid bilayered vesicle environments Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. Biomembranes 1864 183974 10.1016/j.bbamem.2022.183974 35716725
Carpenter EP Beis K Cameron AD Iwata S 2008 Overcoming the challenges of membrane protein crystallography Current Opinion in Structural Biology 18 581 586 10.1016/j.sbi.2008.07.001 18674618
Casiraghi M Wang H Brennan P Habrian C Hubner H Schmidt MF Maul L Pani B Bahriz SM Xu B White E Sunahara RK Xiang YK Lefkowitz RJ Isacoff EY Nucci N Gmeiner P Lerch M Kobilka BK 2024 Structure and dynamics determine G protein coupling specificity at a class a GPCR bioRxiv 10.1101/2024.03.28.587240
Clore GM Gronenborn AM 1991 Structures of larger proteins in solution: three- and four-dimensional heteronuclear NMR spectroscopy Science 252 1390 1399 10.1126/science.2047852 2047852
Columbus L Hubbell WL 2002 A new spin on protein dynamics Trends in Biochemical Sciences 27 288 295 10.1016/S0968-0004(02)02095-9 12069788
Danielson MA Falke JJ 1996 Use of 19F NMR to probe protein structure and conformational changes Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure 25 163 195 10.1146/annurev.bb.25.060196.001115 8800468
Dasgupta S Iyer GH Bryant SH Lawrence CE Bell JA 1997 Extent and nature of contacts between protein molecules in crystal lattices and between subunits of protein oligomers Proteins 28 494 514 10.1002/(sici)1097-0134(199708)28:4<494::aid-prot4>3.0.co;2-a 9261866
Dawidowski D Cafiso DS 2013 Allosteric control of syntaxin 1a by Munc18-1: Characterization of the open and closed conformations of syntaxin Biophysical Journal 104 1585 1594 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.02.004 23561535
Del Alamo D Jagessar KL Meiler J Mchaourab HS 2021 Methodology for rigorous modeling of protein conformational changes by Rosetta using DEER distance restraints PLOS Computational Biology 17 e1009107 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009107 34133419
Ding C Wang S Zhang Z 2021 Integrating an enhanced sampling method and small-angle x-ray scattering to study intrinsically disordered proteins Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 8 621128 10.3389/fmolb.2021.621128 34150843
Edwards TH Stoll S 2018 Optimal Tikhonov regularization for DEER spectroscopy Journal of Magnetic Resonance 288 58 68 10.1016/j.jmr.2018.01.021 29414064
Elgeti M Hubbell WL 2021 DEER analysis of GPCR conformational heterogeneity Biomolecules 11 778 10.3390/biom11060778 34067265
ETH Zurich 2023 Electron paramagnetic resonance 1.1 ETH Zurich https://epr.ethz.ch/software.html
Etienne E Pierro A Tamburrini KC Bonucci A Mileo E Martinho M Belle V 2023 Guidelines for the simulations of nitroxide X-band cw EPR spectra from site-directed spin labeling experiments using SimLabel Molecules 28 1348 10.3390/molecules28031348 36771013
Evans EGB Morgan JLW DiMaio F Zagotta WN Stoll S 2020 Allosteric conformational change of a cyclic nucleotide-gated ion channel revealed by DEER spectroscopy PNAS 117 10839 10847 10.1073/pnas.1916375117 32358188
Fábregas Ibáñez L Jeschke G Stoll S 2020 DeerLab: A comprehensive software package for analyzing dipolar electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy data Magnetic Resonance 1 209 224 10.5194/mr-1-209-2020 34568875
Farahbakhsh ZT Hideg K Hubbell WL 1993 Photoactivated conformational changes in rhodopsin: A time-resolved spin label study Science 262 1416 1419 10.1126/science.8248781 8248781
Farrens DL Altenbach C Yang K Hubbell WL Khorana HG 1996 Requirement of rigid-body motion of transmembrane helices for light activation of rhodopsin Science 274 768 770 10.1126/science.274.5288.768 8864113
Feng S Park S Choi YK Im W 2023 CHARMM-GUI: Past, current, and future developments and applications Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 19 2161 2185 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c01246 37014931
Fichou Y Oberholtzer ZR Ngo H Cheng C-Y Keller TJ Eschmann NA Han S 2019 Tau-cofactor complexes as building blocks of tau fibrils Frontiers in Neuroscience 13 1339 10.3389/fnins.2019.01339 31920504
Fielding AJ Concilio MG Heaven G Hollas MA 2014 New developments in spin labels for pulsed dipolar EPR Molecules 19 16998 17025 10.3390/molecules191016998 25342554
Flores Jiménez RH Freed DM Cafiso DS 2011 Lipid and membrane mimetic environments modulate spin label side chain configuration in the outer membrane protein A The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 115 14822 14830 10.1021/jp207420d 22034842
Francis DJ Hubbell WL Klug CS 2012 Probing protein secondary structure using epr: Investigating a dynamic region of visual arrestin Applied Magnetic Resonance 43 405 419 10.1007/s00723-012-0369-y 25419051
Frauenfelder H Sligar SG Wolynes PG 1991 The energy landscapes and motions of proteins Science 254 1598 1603 10.1126/science.1749933 1749933
Freed JH 1976 Theory of slow tumbling ESR spectra for nitroxides Freed JH In Spin Labeling Theory and Applications New York Academic Press 53 132 10.1016/B978-0-12-092350-2.50008-4
Freed DM Horanyi PS Wiener MC Cafiso DS 2010 Conformational exchange in a membrane transport protein is altered in protein crystals Biophysical Journal 99 1604 1610 10.1016/j.bpj.2010.06.026 20816073
Glaeser RM 2016 How good can cryo-EM become? Nature Methods 13 28 32 10.1038/nmeth.3695 26716559
Gregorio GG Masureel M Hilger D Terry DS Juette M Zhao H Zhou Z Perez-Aguilar JM Hauge M Mathiasen S Javitch JA Weinstein H Kobilka BK Blanchard SC 2017 Single-molecule analysis of ligand efficacy in β2AR-G-protein activation Nature 547 68 73 10.1038/nature22354 28607487
Grossfield A Zuckerman DM 2009 Quantifying uncertainty and sampling quality in biomolecular simulations Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry 5 23 48 10.1016/S1574-1400(09)00502-7 20454547
Ha T 2001 Single-molecule fluorescence resonance energy transfer Methods 25 78 86 10.1006/meth.2001.1217 11558999
Hagelueken G Ward R Naismith JH Schiemann O 2012 MtsslWizard: In Silico spin-labeling and generation of distance distributions in PyMOL Applied Magnetic Resonance 42 377 391 10.1007/s00723-012-0314-0 22448103
Hagelueken G Abdullin D Ward R Schiemann O 2013 mtsslSuite: In silico spin labelling, trilateration and distance-constrained rigid body docking in PyMOL Molecular Physics 111 2757 2766 10.1080/00268976.2013.809804 24954955
Hatmal MM Li Y Hegde BG Hegde PB Jao CC Langen R Haworth IS 2012 Computer modeling of nitroxide spin labels on proteins Biopolymers 97 35 44 10.1002/bip.21699 21792846
Hays JM Cafiso DS Kasson PM 2019 Hybrid refinement of heterogeneous conformational ensembles using spectroscopic data The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 10 3410 3414 10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b01407 31181934
He X Walker B Man VH Ren P Wang J 2022 Recent progress in general force fields of small molecules Current Opinion in Structural Biology 72 187 193 10.1016/j.sbi.2021.11.011 34942567
Henzler-Wildman K Kern D 2007 Dynamic personalities of proteins Nature 450 964 972 10.1038/nature06522 18075575
Hilger D Jung H Padan E Wegener C Vogel K-P Steinhoff H-J Jeschke G 2005 Assessing oligomerization of membrane proteins by four-pulse DEER: pH-dependent dimerization of NhaA Na+/H+ antiporter of E. coli Biophysical Journal 89 1328 1338 10.1529/biophysj.105.062232 15894644
Hogben HJ Krzystyniak M Charnock GTP Hore PJ Kuprov I 2011 Spinach – A software library for simulation of spin dynamics in large spin systems Journal of Magnetic Resonance 208 179 194 10.1016/j.jmr.2010.11.008 21169043
Hubbell WL McConnell HM 1971 Molecular motion in spin-labeled phospholipids and membranes Journal of the American Chemical Society 93 314 326 10.1021/ja00731a005 5541516
Hubbell WL Altenbach C 1994 Site-directed spin labeling of membrane proteins Hubbell WL In Membrane Protein Structure New York Springer 224 248
Hubbell WL Mchaourab HS Altenbach C Lietzow MA 1996 Watching proteins move using site-directed spin labeling Structure 4 779 783 10.1016/s0969-2126(96)00085-8 8805569
Hubbell WL Altenbach C Hubbell CM Khorana HG 2003 Rhodopsin structure, dynamics, and activation: A perspective from crystallography, site-directed spin labeling, sulfhydryl reactivity, and disulfide cross-linking Advances in Protein Chemistry 63 243 290 10.1016/s0065-3233(03)63010-x 12629973
Hustedt EJ Beth AH 2004 High field/high frequency saturation transfer electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy: Increased sensitivity to very slow rotational motions Biophysical Journal 86 3940 3950 10.1529/biophysj.103.035048 15189890
Hustedt EJ Marinelli F Stein RA Faraldo-Gómez JD Mchaourab HS 2018 Confidence analysis of DEER data and its structural interpretation with ensemble-biased metadynamics Biophysical Journal 115 1200 1216 10.1016/j.bpj.2018.08.008 30197182
Hustedt EJ Stein RA Mchaourab HS 2021 Protein functional dynamics from the rigorous global analysis of DEER data: Conditions, components, and conformations The Journal of General Physiology 153 e201711954 10.1085/jgp.201711954 34529007
Hyde JS Dalton L 1972 Very slowly tumbling spin labels: Adiabatic rapid passage Chemical Physics Letters 16 568 572 10.1016/0009-2614(72)80426-3
Hyde JS Thomas DD 1973 New EPR methods for the study of very slow motion: Application to spin-labeled hemoglobin Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 222 680 692 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1973.tb15295.x 4361877
Islam SM Stein RA McHaourab HS Roux B 2013 Structural refinement from restrained-ensemble simulations based on EPR/DEER data: Application to T4 lysozyme The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B 117 4740 4754 10.1021/jp311723a 23510103
Islam SM Roux B 2015 Simulating the distance distribution between spin-labels attached to proteins The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B 119 3901 3911 10.1021/jp510745d 25645890
Jana S Evans EGB Jang HS Zhang S Zhang H Rajca A Gordon SE Zagotta WN Stoll S Mehl RA 2023 Ultrafast bioorthogonal spin-labeling and distance measurements in mammalian cells using small, genetically encoded Tetrazine Amino acids Journal of the American Chemical Society 145 14608 14620 10.1021/jacs.3c00967 37364003
Jeliazkov JR del Alamo D Karpiak JD 2023 ESMFold Hallucinates Native-like Protein Sequences bioRxiv 10.1101/2023.05.23.541774
Jeschke G Chechik V Ionita P Godt A Zimmermann H Banham J Timmel CR Hilger D Jung H 2006 DeerAnalysis2006—a comprehensive software package for analyzing pulsed ELDOR data Applied Magnetic Resonance 30 473 498 10.1007/BF03166213
Jeschke G 2012 DEER distance measurements on proteins Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 63 419 446 10.1146/annurev-physchem-032511-143716 22404592
Jeschke G 2018 MMM: A toolbox for integrative structure modeling Protein Science 27 76 85 10.1002/pro.3269 28799219
Jo S Cheng X Islam SM Huang L Rui H Zhu A Lee HS Qi Y Han W Vanommeslaeghe K MacKerell AD Roux B Im W 2014 CHARMM-GUI PDB manipulator for advanced modeling and simulations of proteins containing nonstandard residues Advances in Protein Chemistry and Structural Biology 96 235 265 10.1016/bs.apcsb.2014.06.002 25443960
Jumper J Evans R Pritzel A Green T Figurnov M Ronneberger O Tunyasuvunakool K Bates R Žídek A Potapenko A Bridgland A Meyer C Kohl SAA Ballard AJ Cowie A Romera-Paredes B Nikolov S Jain R Adler J Back T Petersen S Reiman D Clancy E Zielinski M Steinegger M Pacholska M Berghammer T Bodenstein S Silver D Vinyals O Senior AW Kavukcuoglu K Kohli P Hassabis D 2021 Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold Nature 596 583 589 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 34265844
Kaptein R Wagner G 2015 NMR studies of membrane proteins Journal of Biomolecular NMR 61 181 184 10.1007/s10858-015-9918-7 25840906
Karplus M McCammon JA 2002 Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules Nature Structural Biology 9 646 652 10.1038/nsb0902-646 12198485
Khan F Elgeti M Grandfield S Paz A Naughton FB Marcoline FV Althoff T Ermolova N Wright EM Hubbell WL Grabe M Abramson J 2023 Membrane potential accelerates sugar uptake by stabilizing the outward facing conformation of the Na/glucose symporter vSGLT Nature Communications 14 7511 10.1038/s41467-023-43119-z 37980423
Klein F Soñora M Helene Santos L Nazareno Frigini E Ballesteros-Casallas A Rodrigo Machado M Pantano S 2023 The SIRAH force field: A suite for simulations of complex biological systems at the coarse-grained and multiscale levels Journal of Structural Biology 215 107985 10.1016/j.jsb.2023.107985 37331570
Knierim B Hofmann KP Ernst OP Hubbell WL 2007 Sequence of late molecular events in the activation of rhodopsin PNAS 104 20290 20295 10.1073/pnas.0710393104 18077356
Krishna R Wang J Ahern W Sturmfels P Venkatesh P Kalvet I Lee GR Morey-Burrows FS Anishchenko I Humphreys IR McHugh R Vafeados D Li X Sutherland GA Hitchcock A Hunter CN Kang A Brackenbrough E Bera AK Baek M DiMaio F Baker D 2024 Generalized biomolecular modeling and design with RoseTTAFold All-Atom Science 384 eadl2528 10.1126/science.adl2528 38452047
Kühlbrandt Wb 2014 The Resolution Revolution Science 343 1443 1444 10.1126/science.1251652 24675944
Lacapère JJ Pebay-Peyroula E Neumann JM Etchebest C 2007 Determining membrane protein structures: Still a challenge! Trends in Biochemical Sciences 32 259 270 10.1016/j.tibs.2007.04.001 17481903
Leman JK Weitzner BD Lewis SM Adolf-Bryfogle J Alam N Alford RF Aprahamian M Baker D Barlow KA Barth P Basanta B Bender BJ Blacklock K Bonet J Boyken SE Bradley P Bystroff C Conway P Cooper S Correia BE Coventry B Das R De Jong RM DiMaio F Dsilva L Dunbrack R Ford AS Frenz B Fu DY Geniesse C Goldschmidt L Gowthaman R Gray JJ Gront D Guffy S Horowitz S Huang P-S Huber T Jacobs TM Jeliazkov JR Johnson DK Kappel K Karanicolas J Khakzad H Khar KR Khare SD Khatib F Khramushin A King IC Kleffner R Koepnick B Kortemme T Kuenze G Kuhlman B Kuroda D Labonte JW Lai JK Lapidoth G Leaver-Fay A Lindert S Linsky T London N Lubin JH Lyskov S Maguire J Malmström L Marcos E Marcu O Marze NA Meiler J Moretti R Mulligan VK Nerli S Norn C Ó’Conchúir S Ollikainen N Ovchinnikov S Pacella MS Pan X Park H Pavlovicz RE Pethe M Pierce BG Pilla KB Raveh B Renfrew PD Burman SSR Rubenstein A Sauer MF Scheck A Schief W Schueler-Furman O Sedan Y Sevy AM Sgourakis NG Shi L Siegel JB Silva D-A Smith S Song Y Stein A Szegedy M Teets FD Thyme SB Wang RY-R Watkins A Zimmerman L Bonneau R 2020 Macromolecular modeling and design in Rosetta: Recent methods and frameworks Nature Methods 17 665 680 10.1038/s41592-020-0848-2 32483333
Lendzian F Sahlin M MacMillan F Bittl R Fiege R Pötsch S Sjöberg BM Gräslund A Lubitz W Lassmann G 1996 Electronic structure of neutral tryptophan radicals in ribonucleotide reductase studied by EPR and ENDOR spectroscopy Journal of the American Chemical Society 118 8111 8120 10.1021/ja960917r
Lerch MT Matt RA Masureel M Elgeti M Kumar KK Hilger D Foys B Kobilka BK Hubbell WL 2020 Viewing rare conformations of the β2 adrenergic receptor with pressure-resolved DEER spectroscopy PNAS 117 31824 31831 10.1073/pnas.2013904117 33257561
Lindemann WR Christoff-Tempesta T Ortony JH 2020 A global minimization toolkit for batch-fitting and χ2 cluster analysis of CW-EPR spectra Biophysical Journal 119 1937 1945 10.1016/j.bpj.2020.08.042 33147478
Lubitz W Lendzian F Bittl R 2002 Radicals, radical pairs and triplet states in photosynthesis Accounts of Chemical Research 35 313 320 10.1021/ar000084g 12020169
Marinelli F Faraldo-Gómez JD 2015 Ensemble-biased metadynamics: A molecular simulation method to sample experimental distributions Biophysical Journal 108 2779 2782 10.1016/j.bpj.2015.05.024 26083917
Marinelli F Fiorin G 2019 Structural characterization of biomolecules through atomistic simulations guided by DEER measurements Structure 27 359 370 10.1016/j.str.2018.10.013 30528595
Marsh D 1981 Electron spin resonance: Spin labels Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, and Biophysics 31 51 142 10.1007/978-3-642-81537-9_2 6262623
Martin PD Svensson B Thomas DD Stoll S 2019 Trajectory-based simulation of epr spectra: Models of rotational motion for spin labels on proteins The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B 123 10131 10141 10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b02693 31693365
Mchaourab HS Lietzow MA Hideg K Hubbell WL 1996 Motion of spin-labeled side chains in T4 lysozyme Correlation with Protein Structure and Dynamics. Biochemistry 35 7692 7704 10.1021/bi960482k 8672470
Mehra R Dehury B Kepp KP 2020 Cryo-temperature effects on membrane protein structure and dynamics Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 22 5427 5438 10.1039/c9cp06723j 31971183
Meirovitch E Nayeem A Freed JH 1984 Analysis of protein-lipid interactions based on model simulations of electron spin resonance spectra The Journal of Physical Chemistry 88 3454 3465 10.1021/j150660a018
Meyer A Dechert S Dey S Höbartner C Bennati M 2020 Measurement of angstrom to nanometer molecular distances with 19 F nuclear spins by EPR/ENDOR spectroscopy Angewandte Chemie 59 373 379 10.1002/anie.201908584 31539187
Meyer A Kehl A Cui C Reichardt FAK Hecker F Funk LM Ghosh MK Pan KT Urlaub H Tittmann K Stubbe J Bennati M 2022 19F electron-nuclear double resonance reveals interaction between redox-active tyrosines across the α/β interface of E. coli ribonucleotide reductase Journal of the American Chemical Society 144 11270 11282 10.1021/jacs.2c02906 35652913
Monticelli L Kandasamy SK Periole X Larson RG Tieleman DP Marrink S-J 2008 The MARTINI coarse-grained force field: Extension to proteins Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 4 819 834 10.1021/ct700324x 26621095
Noble AJ Wei H Dandey VP Zhang Z Tan YZ Potter CS Carragher B 2018 Reducing effects of particle adsorption to the air-water interface in cryo-EM Nature Methods 15 793 795 10.1038/s41592-018-0139-3 30250056
Oganesyan VS 2011 A general approach for prediction of motional EPR spectra from Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations: Application to spin labelled protein Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 13 4724 4737 10.1039/c0cp01068e 21279205
Opella SJ Marassi FM 2004 Structure determination of membrane proteins by NMR spectroscopy Chemical Reviews 104 3587 3606 10.1021/cr0304121 15303829
Pannier M Veit S Godt A Jeschke G Spiess HW 2000 Dead-time free measurement of dipole-dipole interactions between electron spins Journal of Magnetic Resonance 142 331 340 10.1006/jmre.1999.1944 10648151
Papasergi-Scott MM Pérez-Hernández G Batebi H Gao Y Eskici G Seven AB Panova O Hilger D Casiraghi M He F Maul L Gmeiner P Kobilka BK Hildebrand PW Skiniotis G 2023 Time-Resolved Cryo-EM of G Protein Activation by a GPCR bioRxiv 10.1101/2023.03.20.533387
Peter MF Gebhardt C Mächtel R Muñoz GGM Glaenzer J Narducci A Thomas GH Cordes T Hagelueken G 2022 Cross-validation of distance measurements in proteins by PELDOR/DEER and single-molecule FRET Nature Communications 13 4396 10.1038/s41467-022-31945-6 35906222
Pierro A Etienne E Gerbaud G Guigliarelli B Ciurli S Belle V Zambelli B Mileo E 2020 Nickel and GTP modulate helicobacter pylori ureg structural flexibility Biomolecules 10 1062 10.3390/biom10071062 32708696
Pierro A Drescher M 2023 Dance with spins: site-directed spin labeling coupled to electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy directly inside cells Chemical Communications 59 1274 1284 10.1039/D2CC05907J 36633152
Pitera JW Chodera JD 2012 On the use of experimental observations to bias simulated ensembles Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 8 3445 3451 10.1021/ct300112v 26592995
Pliotas C Ward R Branigan E Rasmussen A Hagelueken G Huang H Black SS Booth IR Schiemann O Naismith JH 2012 Conformational state of the MscS mechanosensitive channel in solution revealed by pulsed electron-electron double resonance (PELDOR) spectroscopy PNAS 109 E2675 E2682 10.1073/pnas.1202286109 23012406
Pracht P Bohle F Grimme S 2020 Automated exploration of the low-energy chemical space with fast quantum chemical methods Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 22 7169 7192 10.1039/c9cp06869d 32073075
Prosser RS Alonzi NA 2023 Discerning conformational dynamics and binding kinetics of GPCRs by 19F NMR Current Opinion in Pharmacology 72 102377 10.1016/j.coph.2023.102377 37612172
Qi Y Lee J Klauda JB Im W 2019 CHARMM‐GUI Nanodisc Builder for modeling and simulation of various nanodisc systems Journal of Computational Chemistry 40 893 899 10.1002/jcc.25773 30677169
Qi Y Lee J Cheng X Shen R Islam SM Roux B Im W 2020 CHARMM-GUI DEER facilitator for spin-pair distance distribution calculations and preparation of restrained-ensemble molecular dynamics simulations Journal of Computational Chemistry 41 415 420 10.1002/jcc.26032 31329318
Rabenstein MD Shin YK 1995 Determination of the distance between two spin labels attached to a macromolecule PNAS 92 8239 8243 10.1073/pnas.92.18.8239 7667275
Rasmussen SGF Choi H-J Fung JJ Pardon E Casarosa P Chae PS Devree BT Rosenbaum DM Thian FS Kobilka TS Schnapp A Konetzki I Sunahara RK Gellman SH Pautsch A Steyaert J Weis WI Kobilka BK 2011 Structure of a nanobody-stabilized active state of the β(2) adrenoceptor Nature 469 175 180 10.1038/nature09648 21228869
Rayes RF Kálai T Hideg K Geeves MA Fajer PG 2011 Dynamics of tropomyosin in muscle fibers as monitored by saturation transfer EPR of Bi-functional probe PLOS ONE 6 e21277 10.1371/journal.pone.0021277 21701580
Rice LM Brünger AT 1994 Torsion angle dynamics: Reduced variable conformational sampling enhances crystallographic structure refinement Proteins 19 277 290 10.1002/prot.340190403 7984624
Roux B Islam SM 2013 Restrained-ensemble molecular dynamics simulations based on distance histograms from double electron-electron resonance spectroscopy The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B 117 4733 4739 10.1021/jp3110369 23510121
Russell H Cura R Lovett JE 2022 DEER data analysis software: A comparative guide Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 9 915167 10.3389/fmolb.2022.915167 35720114
Sala D Engelberger F Mchaourab HS Meiler J 2023 Modeling conformational states of proteins with AlphaFold Current Opinion in Structural Biology 81 102645 10.1016/j.sbi.2023.102645 37392556
Sánchez-Rico C Voith von Voithenberg L Warner L Lamb DC Sattler M 2017 Effects of fluorophore attachment on protein conformation and dynamics studied by spFRET and NMR Spectroscopy Chemistry 23 14267 14277 10.1002/chem.201702423 28799205
Sarewicz M Borek A Daldal F Froncisz W Osyczka A 2008 Demonstration of short-lived complexes of cytochrome c with cytochrome bc1 by EPR spectroscopy: implications for the mechanism of interprotein electron transfer The Journal of Biological Chemistry 283 24826 24836 10.1074/jbc.M802174200 18617515
Sawle L Ghosh K 2016 Convergence of molecular dynamics simulation of protein native states: Feasibility vs self-consistency ilemma Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 12 861 869 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00999 26765584
Schiemann O Heubach CA Abdullin D Ackermann K Azarkh M Bagryanskaya EG Drescher M Endeward B Freed JH Galazzo L Goldfarb D Hett T Esteban Hofer L Fábregas Ibáñez L Hustedt EJ Kucher S Kuprov I Lovett JE Meyer A Ruthstein S Saxena S Stoll S Timmel CR Di Valentin M Mchaourab HS Prisner TF Bode BE Bordignon E Bennati M Jeschke G 2021 Benchmark test and guidelines for DEER/PELDOR experiments on nitroxide-labeled biomolecules Journal of the American Chemical Society 143 17875 17890 10.1021/jacs.1c07371 34664948
Schröder M Biskup T 2022 cwepr - A Python package for analysing cw-EPR data focussing on reproducibility and simple usage Journal of Magnetic Resonance 335 107140 10.1016/j.jmr.2021.107140 34999309
Schwarz D Pirrwitz J Meyer HW Coon MJ Ruckpaul K 1990 Membrane topology of microsomal cytochrome P-450: saturation transfer EPR and freeze-fracture electron microscopy studies Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 171 175 181 10.1016/0006-291x(90)91373-z 2168169
Sezer D Freed JH Roux B 2008a Parametrization, molecular dynamics simulation, and calculation of electron spin resonance spectra of a nitroxide spin label on a polyalanine alpha-helix The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B 112 5755 5767 10.1021/jp711375x 18412413
Sezer D Freed JH Roux B 2008b Using Markov models to simulate electron spin resonance spectra from molecular dynamics trajectories The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B 112 11014 11027 10.1021/jp801608v 18698714
Sezer D Freed JH Roux B 2009 Multifrequency electron spin resonance spectra of a spin-labeled protein calculated from molecular dynamics simulations Journal of the American Chemical Society 131 2597 2605 10.1021/ja8073819 19191603
Shi X Bonilla S Herschlag D Harbury P 2015 Quantifying nucleic acid ensembles with X-ray scattering interferometry Methods in Enzymology 558 75 97 10.1016/bs.mie.2015.02.001 26068738
Smith AA Pacull EM Stecher S Hildebrand PW Vogel A Huster D 2023 Analysis of the dynamics of the human growth hormone secretagogue receptor reveals insights into the energy landscape of the molecule Angewandte Chemie 62 e202302003 10.1002/anie.202302003 37205715
Souza PCT Alessandri R Barnoud J Thallmair S Faustino I Grünewald F Patmanidis I Abdizadeh H Bruininks BMH Wassenaar TA Kroon PC Melcr J Nieto V Corradi V Khan HM Domański J Javanainen M Martinez-Seara H Reuter N Best RB Vattulainen I Monticelli L Periole X Tieleman DP de Vries AH Marrink SJ 2021 Martini 3: a general purpose force field for coarse-grained molecular dynamics Nature Methods 18 382 388 10.1038/s41592-021-01098-3 33782607
Spicher S Abdullin D Grimme S Schiemann O 2020 Modeling of spin-spin distance distributions for nitroxide labeled biomacromolecules Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 22 24282 24290 10.1039/d0cp04920d 33107523
Stahl K Graziadei A Dau T Brock O Rappsilber J 2023 Protein structure prediction with in-cell photo-crosslinking mass spectrometry and deep learning Nature Biotechnology 41 1810 1819 10.1038/s41587-023-01704-z 36941363
Stein RA Beth AH Hustedt EJ 2015 A straightforward approach to the analysis of double electron-electron resonance data Methods in Enzymology 563 531 567 10.1016/bs.mie.2015.07.031 26478498
Steinhoff HJ Mollaaghababa R Altenbach C Hideg K Krebs M Khorana HG Hubbell WL 1994 Time-resolved detection of structural changes during the photocycle of spin-labeled bacteriorhodopsin Science 266 105 107 10.1126/science.7939627 7939627
Steinhoff HJ Hubbell WL 1996 Calculation of electron paramagnetic resonance spectra from Brownian dynamics trajectories: application to nitroxide side chains in proteins Biophysical Journal 71 2201 2212 10.1016/S0006-3495(96)79421-3 8889196
Stoica I 2004 Using molecular dynamics to simulate electronic spin resonance spectra of T4 lysozyme The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 108 1771 1782 10.1021/jp036121d
Stoll S Schweiger A 2006 EasySpin, a comprehensive software package for spectral simulation and analysis in EPR Journal of Magnetic Resonance 178 42 55 10.1016/j.jmr.2005.08.013 16188474
Subczynski WK Raguz M Widomska J 2010 Studying lipid organization in biological membranes using liposomes and EPR spin labeling Methods in Molecular Biology 606 247 269 10.1007/978-1-60761-447-0_18 20013402
Tesei G Martins JM Kunze MBA Wang Y Crehuet R Lindorff-Larsen K 2021 DEER-PREdict: Software for efficient calculation of spin-labeling EPR and NMR data from conformational ensembles PLOS Computational Biology 17 e1008551 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008551 33481784
Tessmer MH Canarie ER Stoll S 2022 Comparative evaluation of spin-label modeling methods for protein structural studies Biophysical Journal 121 3508 3519 10.1016/j.bpj.2022.08.002 35957530
Tessmer MH Stoll S 2023 chiLife: An open-source Python package for in silico spin labeling and integrative protein modeling PLOS Computational Biology 19 e1010834 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010834 37000838
Thorsen TS Matt R Weis WI Kobilka BK 2014 Modified T4 lysozyme fusion proteins facilitate g protein-coupled receptor crystallogenesis Structure 22 1657 1664 10.1016/j.str.2014.08.022 25450769
Torricella F Pierro A Mileo E Belle V Bonucci A 2021 Nitroxide spin labels and EPR spectroscopy: A powerful association for protein dynamics studies Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Proteins and Proteomics 1869 140653 10.1016/j.bbapap.2021.140653 33757896
Twomey A Kurata K Nagare Y Takamatsu H Aksan A 2015 Microheterogeneity in frozen protein solutions International Journal of Pharmaceutics 487 91 100 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.04.032 25888798
Tyrrell S Oganesyan VS 2013 Simulation of electron paramagnetic resonance spectra of spin-labeled molecules from replica-exchange molecular dynamics Physical Review. E, Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 88 042701 10.1103/PhysRevE.88.042701 24229207
Van Eps N Caro LN Morizumi T Kusnetzow AK Szczepek M Hofmann KP Bayburt TH Sligar SG Ernst OP Hubbell WL 2017 Conformational equilibria of light-activated rhodopsin in nanodiscs PNAS 114 E3268 E3275 10.1073/pnas.1620405114 28373559
von Hagens T Polyhach Y Sajid M Godt A Jeschke G 2013 Suppression of ghost distances in multiple-spin double electron-electron resonance Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 15 5854 5866 10.1039/c3cp44462g 23487036
Weber S Möbius K Richter G Kay CW 2001 The electronic structure of the flavin cofactor in DNA photolyase Journal of the American Chemical Society 123 3790 3798 10.1021/ja003426m 11457111
White GF Ottignon L Georgiou T Kleanthous C Moore GR Thomson AJ Oganesyan VS 2007 Analysis of nitroxide spin label motion in a protein-protein complex using multiple frequency EPR spectroscopy Journal of Magnetic Resonance 185 191 203 10.1016/j.jmr.2006.12.009 17218133
Wingler LM Elgeti M Hilger D Latorraca NR Lerch MT Staus DP Dror RO Kobilka BK Hubbell WL Lefkowitz RJ 2019 Angiotensin analogs with divergent bias stabilize distinct receptor conformations Cell 176 468 478 10.1016/j.cell.2018.12.005 30639099
Worswick SG Spencer JA Jeschke G Kuprov I 2018 Deep neural network processing of DEER data Science Advances 4 eaat5218 10.1126/sciadv.aat5218 30151430
Wu R Ding F Wang R Shen R Zhang X Luo S Su C Wu Z Xie Q Berger B Ma J Peng J 2022 High-resolution de Novo structure prediction from primary sequence bioRxiv 10.1101/2022.07.21.500999
Xie T Song Z Huang J 2023 Conditioned protein structure prediction bioRxiv 10.1101/2023.09.24.559171
Yang Z Bridges M Lerch MT Altenbach C Hubbell WL 2015 Saturation recovery EPR and nitroxide spin labeling for exploring structure and dynamics in proteins Methods in Enzymology 564 3 27 10.1016/bs.mie.2015.07.016 26477246
Yip KM Fischer N Paknia E Chari A Stark H 2020 Atomic-resolution protein structure determination by cryo-EM Nature 587 157 161 10.1038/s41586-020-2833-4 33087927
Zhao J Elgeti M O’Brien ES Sár CP Ei Daibani A Heng J Sun X White E Che T Hubbell WL Kobilka BK Chen C 2024 Ligand efficacy modulates conformational dynamics of the µ-opioid receptor Nature 629 474 480 10.1038/s41586-024-07295-2 38600384
