Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19502496›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2009

Using genome-wide measurements for computational prediction of SH2-peptide interactions.

Zeba Wunderlich, Leonid A Mirny

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

2 authors.

Zeba WunderlichBiophysics Program, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Leonid A Mirny

Funding

Informatics for Integrating Biology/ the Bedside (RMI)U54LM008748 · NLM · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI KOHANE, ISAAC S. · 2004 to 2013
$39.0M
NLM NIH HHS U54 LM008748NLM NIH HHS U54LM008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peptide-recognition modules (PRMs) are used throughout biology to mediate protein-protein interactions, and many PRMs are members of large protein domain families. Recent genome-wide measurements describe networks of peptide-PRM interactions. In these networks, very similar PRMs recognize distinct sets of peptides, raising the question of how peptide-recognition specificity is achieved using similar protein domains. The analysis of individual protein complex structures often gives answers that are not easily applicable to other members of the same PRM family. Bioinformatics-based approaches, one the other hand, may be difficult to interpret physically. Here we integrate structural information with a large, quantitative data set of SH2 domain-peptide interactions to study the physical origin of domain-peptide specificity. We develop an energy model, inspired by protein folding, based on interactions between the amino-acid positions in the domain and peptide. We use this model to successfully predict which SH2 domains and peptides interact and uncover the positions in each that are important for specificity. The energy model is general enough that it can be applied to other members of the SH2 family or to new peptides, and the cross-validation results suggest that these energy calculations will be useful for predicting binding interactions. It can also be adapted to study other PRM families, predict optimal peptides for a given SH2 domain, or study other biological interactions, e.g. protein-DNA interactions.

Indexed as

src Homology DomainsGenomicsModels, ChemicalModels, MolecularPhosphopeptidesPhosphotyrosineProtein Interaction MappingPhosphopeptidesPhosphotyrosine

Identifiers

PMID19502496
PMCPMC2724268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.