Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19368710›Full record

ArticleBMC structural biology2009

Analysis of the impact of solvent on contacts prediction in proteins.

Sergey A Samsonov, Joan Teyra, Gerd Anders, M Teresa Pisabarro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC structural biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Docking glycosaminoglycans to proteins: analysis of solvent inclusion.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2011
    Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Sergey A SamsonovStructural Bioinformatics, BIOTEC TU Dresden, Tatzberg, Germany. sergey.samsonov@biotec.tu-dresden.de
Joan Teyra
Gerd Anders
M Teresa Pisabarro

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe correlated mutations concept is based on the assumption that interacting protein residues coevolve, so that a mutation in one of the interacting counterparts is compensated by a mutation in the other. Approaches based on this concept have been widely used for protein contacts prediction since the 90s. Previously, we have shown that water-mediated interactions play an important role in protein interfaces. We have observed that current "dry" correlated mutations approaches might not properly predict certain interactions in protein interfaces due to the fact that they are water-mediated.

resultsThe goal of this study has been to analyze the impact of including solvent into the concept of correlated mutations. For this purpose we use linear combinations of the predictions obtained by the application of two different similarity matrices: a standard "dry" similarity matrix (DRY) and a "wet" similarity matrix (WET) derived from all water-mediated protein interfacial interactions in the PDB. We analyze two datasets containing 50 domains and 10 domain pairs from PFAM and compare the results obtained by using a combination of both matrices. We find that for both intra- and interdomain contacts predictions the introduction of a combination of a "wet" and a "dry" similarity matrix improves the predictions in comparison to the "dry" one alone.

conclusionOur analysis, despite the complexity of its possible general applicability, opens up that the consideration of water may have an impact on the improvement of the contact predictions obtained by correlated mutations approaches.

Indexed as

Databases, ProteinMutationProtein ConformationProteinsProtein Structure, TertiarySolventssrc Homology DomainsWaterProteinsSolventsWater

Identifiers

PMID19368710
PMCPMC2676287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.