ArticleJournal of biomolecular NMR2007
Model-free analysis for large proteins at high magnetic field strengths.
Article in Journal of biomolecular NMR, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic networks connect the USP14 active site region with the proteasome interaction surface.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025Article
- Accurate sampling of high-frequency motions in proteins by steady-state (15)N-{(1)H} nuclear Overhauser effect measurements in the presence of cross-correlated relaxation.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protein backbone dynamics is often characterized using model-free analysis of three sets of (15)N relaxation data: longitudinal relaxation rate (R1), transverse relaxation rate (R2), and (15)N-{H} NOE values. Since the experimental data is limited, a simplified model-free spectral density function is often used that contains one Lorentzian describing overall rotational correlation but not one describing internal motion. The simplified spectral density function may be also used in estimating the overall rotational correlation time, by making the R2/R1 largely insensitive to internal motions, as well as used as one of the choices in the model selection protocol. However, such approximation may not be valid for analysis of relaxation data of large proteins recorded at high magnetic field strengths since the contribution to longitudinal relaxation from the Lorentzian describing the overall rotational diffusion of the molecule is comparably small relative to that describing internal motion. Here, we quantitatively estimate the errors introduced by the use of the simplified spectral density in model-free analysis for large proteins at high magnetic field strength.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17593525What 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.