ArticleJournal of molecular modeling2010
"Fuzzy oil drop" model applied to individual small proteins built of 70 amino acids.
Article in Journal of molecular modeling, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fuzzy oil drop model to interpret the structure of antifreeze proteins and their mutants.Journal of molecular modeling · 2012Article
- Searching in microbial genomes for encoded small proteins.Microbial biotechnology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The proteins composed of short polypeptides (about 70 amino acid residues) representing the following functional groups (according to PDB notation): growth hormones, serine protease inhibitors, antifreeze proteins, chaperones and proteins of unknown function, were selected for structural and functional analysis. Classification based on the distribution of hydrophobicity in terms of deficiency/excess as the measure of structural and functional specificity is presented. The experimentally observed distribution of hydrophobicity in the protein body is compared to the idealized one expressed by a three-dimensional Gauss function. The differences between these two distributions reveal the specificity of structural/functional characteristics of the protein. The residues of hydrophobicity deficiency versus the idealized distribution are assumed to indicate cavities with the potential to bind ligands, while the residues of hydrophobicity excess are interpreted as potentially participating in protein-protein complexation. The distribution of hydrophobicity irregularity seems to be specific for particular structures and functions of proteins. A comparative analysis of such profiles is carried out to identify the potential biological activity of proteins of unknown function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20084418What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.