Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19923193›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2010

Comparing models of evolution for ordered and disordered proteins.

Celeste J Brown, Audra K Johnson, Gary W Daughdrill

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 117 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

117 citing papers in PubMed, 207 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Unusual inheritance of a functionalScience advances · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. SHARK enables sensitive detection of evolutionary homologs and functional analogs in unalignable and disordered sequences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Celeste J BrownDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, USA. celesteb@uidaho.edu
Audra K Johnson
Gary W Daughdrill
University of Idaho · USTarget (United States) · US

Funding

UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE OUTREACH PROGRAMP20RR016454 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO · PI HOVDE, CAROLYN J · 2001 to 2011
$35.3M
The Evolution of Protein FlexibilityP20RR016448 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO · PI FORNEY, LARRY J · 2002 to 2011
$19.3M
NCRR NIH HHS P20 RR016448NCRR NIH HHS P20 RR016454NCRR NIH HHS P20RR016454NCRR NIH HHS P20RR16448
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most models of protein evolution are based upon proteins that form relatively rigid 3D structures. A significant fraction of proteins, the so-called disordered proteins, do not form rigid 3D structures and sample a broad conformational ensemble. Disordered proteins do not typically maintain long-range interactions, so the constraints on their evolution should be different than ordered proteins. To test this hypothesis, we developed and compared models of evolution for disordered and ordered proteins. Substitution matrices were constructed using the sequences of putative homologs for sets of experimentally characterized disordered and ordered proteins. Separate matrices, at three levels of sequence similarity (>85%, 85-60%, and 60-40%), were inferred for each type of protein structure. The substitution matrices for disordered and ordered proteins differed significantly at each level of sequence similarity. The disordered matrices reflected a greater likelihood of evolutionary changes, relative to the ordered matrices, and these changes involved nonconservative substitutions. Glutamic acid and asparagine were interesting exceptions to this result. Important differences between the substitutions that are accepted in disordered proteins relative to ordered proteins were also identified. In general, disordered proteins have fewer evolutionary constraints than ordered proteins. However, some residues like tryptophan and tyrosine are highly conserved in disordered proteins. This is due to their important role in forming protein-protein interfaces. Finally, the amino acid frequencies for disordered proteins, computed during the development of the matrices, were compared with amino acid frequencies for different categories of secondary structure in ordered proteins. The highest correlations were observed between the amino acid frequencies in disordered proteins and the solvent-exposed loops and turns of ordered proteins, supporting an emerging structural model for disordered proteins.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularModels, GeneticModels, MolecularAmino Acid SequenceAmino Acid SubstitutionComputational BiologyMolecular Sequence DataProtein ConformationProteinsSequence AlignmentProteins

Identifiers

PMID19923193
PMCPMC2822292
OpenAlexW2117161143

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.