Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18274703›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomolecular NMR2008

Comparison of multiple crystal structures with NMR data for engrailed homeodomain.

Tomasz L Religa

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomolecular NMR, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Fast protein folding kinetics.Quarterly reviews of biophysics · 2014
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Multimolecule test-tube simulations of protein unfolding and aggregation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2012
    Article
  12. 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

1 author.

Tomasz L ReligaMRC Centre for Protein Engineering, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QH, UK. tlr25@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two methods are currently available to solve high resolution protein structures-X-ray crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Both methods usually produce highly similar structures, but small differences between both solutions are always observed. Here the raw NMR data as well as the solved NMR structure were compared to the multiple crystal structures solved for the WT 60 residue three helix bundle engrailed homeodomain (EnHD) and single point mutants. There was excellent agreement between TALOS-predicted and crystal structure-observed dihedral angles and a good agreement for the (3) J(H ( N ) H ( alpha )) couplings for the multiple crystal structures. Around 1% of NOEs were violated for any crystal structure, but no NOE was inconsistent with all of the crystal structures. Violations usually occurred for surface residues or for residues for which multiple discreet conformations were observed between the crystal structures. Comparison of the disorder shown in the multiple crystal structures shows little correlation with dynamics under native conditions for this protein.

Indexed as

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, BiomolecularAmino Acid SequenceAnimalsComputer SimulationCrystallography, X-RayDrosophila melanogasterHomeodomain ProteinsModels, MolecularModels, TheoreticalMolecular Sequence DataProtein Structure, TertiaryProtonsSolutionsThermodynamicsTranscription Factorsengrailed homeobox proteinsHomeodomain ProteinsProtonsSolutionsTranscription Factors

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.