ArticleBioinformation2009
Types of interfaces for homodimer folding and binding.
Article in Bioinformation, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Anna University to America and to Agriculture.Bioinformation · 2021Article
- Geometrical and electro-static determinants of protein-protein interactions.Bioinformation · 2021Article
- Whole-genome re-sequencing reveals the impact of the interaction of copy number variants of the rhg1 and Rhg4 genes on broad-based resistance to soybean cyst nematode.Plant biotechnology journal · 2019Article
- Improving accuracy of protein contact prediction using balanced network deconvolution.Proteins · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Homodimers have a role in catalysis and regulation through the formation of stable interfaces. These interfaces are formed through different folding mechanisms such as 2-state without stable intermediate (2S), 3-state with monomer intermediate (3SMI) and 3-state with dimer intermediate (3SDI). Therefore, it is of interest to understand folding mechanism using structural features at the interfaces. Several studies have documented the significance of structural features for the understanding of homodimer folding mechanisms. However, the known features provide limited information for understanding homodimer folding mechanisms. Hence, we created an extended dataset of 47 homodimers (twenty eight 2S, twelve 3SMI and seven 3SDI) to examine the types of interfaces in protein homodimers. 2S are usually small sized, 3SMI are often medium sized and 3SDI often exist as large sized proteins. The ratio of interface to total (I/T) residue is large in 2S and small in 3SMI and 3SDI. Hence, we used I/T measure to group 2S, 3SMI and 3SDI into categories with large I/T (>> 50%), moderate I/T (50 - 25%) and small I/T (<< 25%) interfaces. The grouping is further sub-grouped based on the type of physical interaction visualized at the interface using representations in two dimensions (2D). 2D representation of the interface shows eight different forms of interactions in these homodimers. 2S homodimers frequently have large I/T and thus, utilize the entire protein structure in the formation of the interface where the individual subunits are heavily inter communicated with each other. This is not true in the case of 3SMI and 3SDI. 3SMI subunits usually interact with each other at the interface with a gentle touch-like contact and hence, they have low I/T ratio. 3SDI are often quite different in interaction compared to 3SMI and their subunits do deeply interact at the interface with only one part of the surface and hence also having low I/T ratio.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.