Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16267133›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2005

Protein folding by distributed computing and the denatured state ensemble.

Neelan J Marianayagam, Nicolas L Fawzi, Teresa Head-Gordon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Neelan J MarianayagamDepartment of Bioengineering and UCSF/UCB Joint Graduate Group in Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
Nicolas L Fawzi
Teresa Head-Gordon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The distributed computing (DC) paradigm in conjunction with the folding@home (FH) client server has been used to study the folding kinetics of small peptides and proteins, giving excellent agreement with experimentally measured folding rates, although pathways sampled in these simulations are not always consistent with the folding mechanism. In this study, we use a coarse-grain model of protein L, whose two-state kinetics have been characterized in detail by using long-time equilibrium simulations, to rigorously test a FH protocol using approximately 10,000 short-time, uncoupled folding simulations starting from an extended state of the protein. We show that the FH results give non-Poisson distributions and early folding events that are unphysical, whereas longer folding events experience a correct barrier to folding but are not representative of the equilibrium folding ensemble. Using short-time, uncoupled folding simulations started from an equilibrated denatured state ensemble (DSE), we also do not get agreement with the equilibrium two-state kinetics because of overrepresented folding events arising from higher energy subpopulations in the DSE. The DC approach using uncoupled short trajectories can make contact with traditionally measured experimental rates and folding mechanism when starting from an equilibrated DSE, when the simulation time is long enough to sample the lowest energy states of the unfolded basin and the simulated free-energy surface is correct. However, the DC paradigm, together with faster time-resolved and single-molecule experiments, can also reveal the breakdown in the two-state approximation due to observation of folding events from higher energy subpopulations in the DSE.

Indexed as

Protein DenaturationProtein FoldingKinetics

Identifiers

PMID16267133
PMCPMC1283817

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.