Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17603074›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular biology2007

Structure-based protocol for identifying mutations that enhance protein-protein binding affinities.

Deanne W Sammond, Ziad M Eletr, Carrie Purbeck, Randall J Kimple, David P Siderovski, Brian Kuhlman

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cancer-associated TRF1 mutations alter PARP1 interaction dynamics: an in silico study.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Rheostatic contributions to protein stability can obscure a position's functional role.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Cold spots are universal in protein-protein interactions.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Deanne W SammondDepartment of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7260, USA.
Ziad M Eletr
Carrie Purbeck
Randall J Kimple
David P Siderovski
Brian Kuhlman
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Designing Affinity and Specificity at Protein InterfacesR01GM073960 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KUHLMAN, BRIAN A · 2005 to 2018
$3.1M
Mechanistic studies of a novel G-alpha nucleotide cycleR01GM074268 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI SIDEROVSKI, DAVID P. · 2006 to 2009
$902k
NIGMS NIH HHS GM073960NIGMS NIH HHS GM074268NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM073960NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM074268
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to manipulate protein binding affinities is important for the development of proteins as biosensors, industrial reagents, and therapeutics. We have developed a structure-based method to rationally predict single mutations at protein-protein interfaces that enhance binding affinities. The protocol is based on the premise that increasing buried hydrophobic surface area and/or reducing buried hydrophilic surface area will generally lead to enhanced affinity if large steric clashes are not introduced and buried polar groups are not left without a hydrogen bond partner. The procedure selects affinity enhancing point mutations at the protein-protein interface using three criteria: (1) the mutation must be from a polar amino acid to a non-polar amino acid or from a non-polar amino acid to a larger non-polar amino acid, (2) the free energy of binding as calculated with the Rosetta protein modeling program should be more favorable than the free energy of binding calculated for the wild-type complex and (3) the mutation should not be predicted to significantly destabilize the monomers. The performance of the computational protocol was experimentally tested on two separate protein complexes; Galpha(i1) from the heterotrimeric G-protein system bound to the RGS14 GoLoco motif, and the E2, UbcH7, bound to the E3, E6AP from the ubiquitin pathway. Twelve single-site mutations that were predicted to be stabilizing were synthesized and characterized in the laboratory. Nine of the 12 mutations successfully increased binding affinity with five of these increasing binding by over 1.0 kcal/mol. To further assess our approach we searched the literature for point mutations that pass our criteria and have experimentally determined binding affinities. Of the eight mutations identified, five were accurately predicted to increase binding affinity, further validating the method as a useful tool to increase protein-protein binding affinities.

Indexed as

MutationAmino Acid MotifsChemistry, PhysicalCrystallizationGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, Gi-GoMicroscopy, FluorescenceModels, MolecularProtein BindingProtein ConformationProtein Interaction MappingProteinsProtein Structure, TertiarySoftwareThermodynamicsGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunits, Gi-GoProteins

Identifiers

PMID17603074
PMCPMC2682327
OpenAlexW1999243747

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.