Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16544108›Full record

ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2006

Characterizing folding, structure, molecular interactions and ligand gated activation of single sodium/proton antiporters.

Alexej Kedrov, Daniel J Müller

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. A multi-faceted world of transporters.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2006
    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

2 authors.

Alexej KedrovBioTechnological Center, University of Technology, Tatzberg 49, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Daniel J Müller

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using the example of sodium/proton antiporter from Escherichia coli NhaA, we review the capabilities of single-molecule atomic force microscopy and force spectroscopy to observe structural and functional insights of a membrane protein, which are not attainable by other traditional methods. While atomic force microscopy provides high-resolution topographs of single membrane proteins, their oligomeric state and assembly, single-molecule force spectroscopy experiments detect molecular interactions of the protein. The sensitivity of this method makes it possible to detect and locate interactions that stabilize secondary structures such as transmembrane alpha-helices, polypeptide loops and segments within them. Controlled refolding experiments using single-molecule force spectroscopy observed individual secondary structure segments folding into the functional protein. Various folding pathways of NhaA were detected, each one exhibiting a certain probability to be taken. Time-lapse refolding experiments enabled determining the folding kinetics and hierarchy of individual secondary structural elements. Recent examples detected and located the ligand binding of an antiporter. Similarly, inhibitor binding and location can be detected which in future may guide towards comparative studies of agonist and antagonist altering the functional state of a membrane protein. We review current and future potentials of these approaches to characterize the action of pharmacological molecules on the antiporter function.

Indexed as

Amino Acid SequenceEscherichia coli ProteinsMicroscopy, Atomic ForceModels, MolecularMolecular Sequence DataProtein FoldingProtein Structure, SecondarySodium-Hydrogen ExchangersEscherichia coli ProteinsNhaA protein, E coliSodium-Hydrogen Exchangers

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.