Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 20, 2026

Setting Limits on Supersymmetry Using Simplified Models
Published on: November 15, 2013
Effects of J couplings and unobservable minor states on kinetics parameters extracted from CEST data
1Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Singapore.
Abstract:
Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) experiments have emerged as a powerful tool for characterizing dynamics and sparse populated conformers of protein in slow exchanging systems. We show that J couplings and 'invisible' minor states can cause systematic errors in kinetics parameters and chemical shifts extracted from CEST data. For weakly coupled spin systems, the J coupling effect can be removed using an approximation method. This method is warranted through detailed theoretical derivation, supported by results from simulations and experiments on an acyl carrier protein domain. Simulations demonstrate that the effect of 'invisible' minor states on the extracted kinetics parameters depends on the chemical shifts, populations, exchange rates of the 'invisible' states to the observed major or minor state and exchange models. Moreover, the extracted chemical shifts of the observed minor state can also be influenced by the "invisible" minor states. The presence of an off-pathway folding intermediate in the acyl carrier protein domain explains why the exchange rates obtained with a two-state model from individual residues that displayed only two obvious CEST dips varied significantly and the extracted exchange rates for 15N and 13CO spins located in the same peptide bond could be very different. The approximation method described here simplifies CEST data analysis in many situations where the coupling effect cannot be ignored and decoupling techniques are not desirable. In addition, this study also raises alerts for 'invisible' minor states which can cause errors in not only kinetics parameters but also chemical shifts of the observed minor state.
Related Concept Videos
Spin–Spin Coupling: One-Bond Coupling
Spin–Spin Coupling: Three-Bond Coupling (Vicinal Coupling)
The extent of coupling depends on the C‑C bond length, the two H‑C‑C angles, any electron-withdrawing substituents, and the dihedral angle between the...
NMR Spectroscopy: Spin–Spin Coupling
Spin–Spin Coupling Constant: Overview
Qualitatively, any spin plus-half nucleus polarizes the spins of its electrons to the minus-half state. Consequently, the paired electron in the hydrogen–carbon bond must...
Spin–Spin Coupling: Two-Bond Coupling (Geminal Coupling)
The central atom need not be NMR-active because its electrons are affected by the electron polarization of the spin-active atoms. However, spin information is transmitted less effectively than in one-bond coupling, and 2J values are usually weaker than 1J values. The energy of...
¹H NMR: Long-Range Coupling
In alkenes, spin information is communicated via σ–π overlap, as seen in allylic (four-bond) and homoallylic (five-bond) couplings. These coupling interactions are stronger when the σ bond is parallel to the alkene...

