Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19706384›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2009

Restriction versus guidance in protein structure prediction.

Joseph A Hegler, Joachim Lätzer, Amarda Shehu, Cecilia Clementi, Peter G Wolynes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 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. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Residue-level global and local ensemble-ensemble comparisons of protein domains.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2015
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

5 authors.

Joseph A HeglerDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0365, USA.
Joachim Lätzer
Amarda Shehu
Cecilia Clementi
Peter G Wolynes

Funding

CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS OF THE PROTEIN FOLDING PROBLEMR01GM044557 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI WOLYNES, PETER GUY · 1990 to 2018
$4.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM044557NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM44557
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conformational restriction by fragment assembly and guidance in molecular dynamics are alternate conformational search strategies in protein structure prediction. We examine both approaches using a version of the associative memory Hamiltonian that incorporates the influence of water-mediated interactions (AMW). For short proteins (<70 residues), fragment assembly, while searching a restricted space, compares well to molecular dynamics and is often sufficient to fold such proteins to near-native conformations (4A) via simulated annealing. Longer proteins encounter kinetic sampling limitations in fragment assembly not seen in molecular dynamics which generally samples more native-like conformations. We also present a fragment enriched version of the standard AMW energy function, AMW-FME, which incorporates the local sequence alignment derived fragment libraries from fragment assembly directly into the energy function. This energy function, in which fragment information acts as a guide not a restriction, is found by molecular dynamics to improve on both previous approaches.

Indexed as

Models, MolecularProtein ConformationComputational BiologyMolecular Dynamics SimulationProtein FoldingProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID19706384
PMCPMC2741246

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.