ArticleJournal of protein chemistry2002
Substrate size selectivity of 20S proteasomes: analysis with variable-sized synthetic substrates.
Article in Journal of protein chemistry, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A mathematical model of protein degradation by the proteasome.Biophysical journal · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Proteasomes are tubular complexes with proteolytic activities on their lumenal surfaces so that large substrates should be sterically hindered from reaching the catalytic sites. Here we examine effects of substrate size on rates of cleavage by 20S proteasomes of Methanosarcina thermophila. Synthetic chromogenic substrates of variable size were prepared by linking a constant substrate group (Ala-Ala-Phe-p-nitroanilide) to a linear polymer (methoxypolyethylene glycol) with variable chain length. The smallest macromolecular substrates were cleaved more efficiently than free tripeptide substrate, and cleavage of macromolecular substrates was saturable, whereas cleavage of free tripeptide substrate was not, indicating mechanistic differences between the cleavage of large and small substrates. Rates of macromolecular substrate cleavage decreased progressively up to 10-fold as the size of the polymeric component of substrates increased. Macromolecular synthetic substrates appear to be better models of proteasome action on natural protein substrates and demonstrate substrate size selectivity of proteasomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.