ArticleJournal of molecular modeling2010
Kinetoplastid RNA editing ligases 1 and 2 exhibit different electrostatic properties.
Article in Journal of molecular modeling, 2010. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mutational analysis of Trypanosoma brucei RNA editing ligase reveals regions critical for interaction with KREPA2.PloS one · 2015Article
- Naphthalene-based RNA editing inhibitor blocks RNA editing activities and editosome assembly in Trypanosoma brucei.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Kinetoplastid RNA editing ligases 1 and 2 (KREL1 and KREL2) share a significant degree of sequence homology. However, biochemical experiments have reported that KREL1 and KREL2 differ in their functional roles during the RNA editing process. In this study, we hypothesize that dissimilar roles for KREL1 and KREL2 proteins arise from their different physicochemical characteristics. To test our hypothesis at sequence level, we plotted theoretical titration curves for KREL1, KREL2 and their binding partner proteins. The plots showed a lower isoelectric point for KREL1 compared to that for KREL2 as well as more relative alkalinity and acidity for binding partner proteins of KREL1 and KREL2 at net charge zero, respectively. At structure level, based on the available high resolution structure of KREL1 N-terminal domain and strong sequence similarity between KRELs and other ligases, we built the homology model of KREL2 N-terminal domain. Using Poisson-Boltzmann continuum approach, we calculated the electrostatic potential isosurfaces of KREL1 structure and KREL2 model. KREL1 and KREL2 coordinates differed in their electrostatic isopotential patterns. A wider negative patch on the surface of KREL1 suggests differential affinity for another protein compared to KREL2. In contrast, a larger positive patch on the KREL2 surface predicts its differential affinity and/or specificity for its RNA substrate. Subsequently, we employed in silico mutational scanning and identified the surface-exposed residues contributing to the long-range electrostatic energy of KRELs. We predict that two structurally conserved loops of KRELs, not previously reported in the literature, also recognize their RNA substrates. Our results provide important information about the physicochemical properties of RNA editing ligases that could contribute to the ligation step of RNA editing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.