Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20073083›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2010

Amino acid interaction preferences in proteins.

Anupam Nath Jha, Saraswathi Vishveshwara, Jayanth R Banavar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Structural motifs in protein cores and at protein-protein interfaces are different.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Protein docking with predicted constraints.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors.

Anupam Nath JhaMolecular Biophysics Unit, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India.
Saraswathi Vishveshwara
Jayanth R Banavar

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the key factors that influence the interaction preferences of amino acids in the folding of proteins have remained a challenge. Here we present a knowledge-based approach for determining the effective interactions between amino acids based on amino acid type, their secondary structure, and the contact based environment that they find themselves in the native state structure as measured by their number of neighbors. We find that the optimal information is approximately encoded in a 60 x 60 matrix describing the 20 types of amino acids in three distinct secondary structures (helix, beta strand, and loop). We carry out a clustering scheme to understand the similarity between these interactions and to elucidate a nonredundant set. We demonstrate that the inferred energy parameters can be used for assessing the fit of a given sequence into a putative native state structure.

Indexed as

Amino AcidsCluster AnalysisProtein FoldingProteinsProtein Structure, SecondarySequence Analysis, ProteinAmino AcidsProteins

Identifiers

PMID20073083
PMCPMC2866284

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.