Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12815262›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomolecular NMR2003

A use of Ramachandran potentials in protein solution structure determinations.

Ivano Bertini, Gabriele Cavallaro, Claudio Luchinat, Irene Poli

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomolecular NMR, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Analysis of theFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Improving NMR Structures of RNA.Structure (London, England : 1993) · 2016
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

4 authors.

Ivano BertiniMagnetic Resonance Center, University of Florence, Via Luigi Sacconi 6, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy. bertini@cerm.unifi.it
Gabriele Cavallaro
Claudio Luchinat
Irene Poli

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A strategy is developed to use database-derived phi-psi constraints during simulated annealing procedures for protein solution structure determination in order to improve the Ramachandran plot statistics, while maintaining the agreement with the experimental constraints as the sole criterion for the selection of the family. The procedure, fully automated, consists of two consecutive simulated annealing runs. In the first run, the database-derived phi-psi constraints are enforced for all amino acids (but prolines and glycines). A family of structures is then selected on the ground of the lowest violations of the experimental constraints only, and the phi-psi values for each residue are examined. In the second and final run, the database-derived phi-psi constraints are enforced only for those residues which in the first run have ended in one and the same favored phi-psi region. For residues which are either spread over different favored regions or concentrated in disallowed regions, the constraints are not enforced. The final family is then selected, after the second run, again only based on the agreement with the experimental constraints. This automated approach was implemented in DYANA and was tested on as many as 12 proteins, including some containing paramagnetic metals, whose structures had been previously solved in our laboratory. The quality of the structures, and of Ramachandran plot statistics in particular, was notably improved while preserving the agreement with the experimental constraints.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, MolecularProtein ConformationCrystallography, X-RayDatabases, ProteinNuclear Magnetic Resonance, BiomolecularSolutionsSolutions

Identifiers

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.