Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19683005›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular biology2009

Identification of a mechanical rheostat in the hydrophobic core of protein L.

David P Sadler, Eva Petrik, Yukinori Taniguchi, James R Pullen, Masaru Kawakami, Sheena E Radford, David J Brockwell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Free-energy changes of bacteriorhodopsin point mutants measured by single-molecule force spectroscopy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Force-induced remodelling of proteins and their complexes.Current opinion in structural biology · 2015
    Review
  10. Recent applications of boxed molecular dynamics: a simple multiscale technique for atomistic simulations.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2014
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Mechanical unfolding studies of protein molecules.Biophysics (Nagoya-shi, Japan) · 2012
    Review
  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

7 authors.

David P SadlerAstbury Centre for Structural Molecular Biology, Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Eva Petrik
Yukinori Taniguchi
James R Pullen
Masaru Kawakami
Sheena E Radford
David J Brockwell

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/D017173/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/D525013/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability of proteins and their complexes to withstand or respond to mechanical stimuli is vital for cells to maintain their structural organisation, to relay external signals and to facilitate unfolding and remodelling. Force spectroscopy using the atomic force microscope allows the behaviour of single protein molecules under an applied extension to be investigated and their mechanical strength to be quantified. protein L, a simple model protein, displays moderate mechanical strength and is thought to unfold by the shearing of two mechanical sub-domains. Here, we investigate the importance of side-chain packing for the mechanical strength of protein L by measuring the mechanical strength of a series of protein L variants containing single conservative hydrophobic volume deletion mutants. Of the five thermodynamically destabilized variants characterised, only one residue (I60 V) close to the interface between two mechanical sub-domains was found to differ in mechanical properties to wild type (Delta F(I60 V-WT)=-36 pN at 447 nm s(-1), Delta x(uI60V-WT)=0.2 nm). Phi-value analysis of the unfolding data revealed a highly native transition state. To test whether the number of hydrophobic contacts across the mechanical interface does affect the mechanical strength of protein L, we measured the mechanical properties of two further variants. protein L L10F, which increases core packing but does not enhance interfacial contacts, increased mechanical strength by 13+/-11 pN at 447 nm s(-1). By contrast, protein L I60F, which increases both core and cross-interface contacts, increased mechanical strength by 72+/-13 pN at 447 nm s(-1). These data suggest a method by which nature can evolve a varied mechanical response from a limited number of topologies and demonstrate a generic but facile method by which the mechanical strength of proteins can be rationally modified.

Indexed as

Amino Acid SubstitutionBacterial ProteinsMicroscopy, Atomic ForceModels, MolecularMutant ProteinsProtein StabilitySequence DeletionBacterial ProteinsIg L-binding protein, PeptostreptococcusMutant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID19683005
PMCPMC2796179

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.