Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11910019›Full record

ReviewProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2002

Natively unfolded proteins: a point where biology waits for physics.

Vladimir N Uversky

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 691 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
691citing papers in PubMed
19.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

691 citing papers in PubMed, 1,811 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 'Intelligent' proteins.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2025
    Review

631 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vladimir N UverskyInstitute for Biological Instrumentation, Russian Academy of Sciences, 142292 Pushchino, Moscow Region, Russia. uversky@hydrogen.ucsc.edu
Russian Academy of Sciences · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The experimental material accumulated in the literature on the conformational behavior of intrinsically unstructured (natively unfolded) proteins was analyzed. Results of this analysis showed that these proteins do not possess uniform structural properties, as expected for members of a single thermodynamic entity. Rather, these proteins may be divided into two structurally different groups: intrinsic coils, and premolten globules. Proteins from the first group have hydrodynamic dimensions typical of random coils in poor solvent and do not possess any (or almost any) ordered secondary structure. Proteins from the second group are essentially more compact, exhibiting some amount of residual secondary structure, although they are still less dense than native or molten globule proteins. An important feature of the intrinsically unstructured proteins is that they undergo disorder-order transition during or prior to their biological function. In this respect, the Protein Quartet model, with function arising from four specific conformations (ordered forms, molten globules, premolten globules, and random coils) and transitions between any two of the states, is discussed.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualModels, ChemicalPhysical PhenomenaPhysicsProtein ConformationProtein FoldingProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID11910019
PMCPMC2373528
OpenAlexW2119693327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.