Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20507585›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2010

Conserved residue clusters at protein-protein interfaces and their use in binding site identification.

Mainak Guharoy, Pinak Chakrabarti

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. CuiT is a Cu importer required for metal homeostasis inBiochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Reporting on the future of integrative structural biology ORAU workshop.Frontiers in bioscience (Landmark edition) · 2020
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mainak GuharoyBioinformatics Centre, Bose Institute, P-1/12 CIT Scheme VIIM, Kolkata, India.
Pinak Chakrabarti
Bose Institute · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiological evolution conserves protein residues that are important for structure and function. Both protein stability and function often require a certain degree of structural co-operativity between spatially neighboring residues and it has previously been shown that conserved residues occur clustered together in protein tertiary structures, enzyme active sites and protein-DNA interfaces. Residues comprising protein interfaces are often more conserved compared to those occurring elsewhere on the protein surface. We investigate the extent to which conserved residues within protein-protein interfaces are clustered together in three-dimensions.

resultsOut of 121 and 392 interfaces in homodimers and heterocomplexes, 96.7 and 86.7%, respectively, have the conserved positions clustered within the overall interface region. The significance of this clustering was established in comparison to what is seen for the subsets of the same size of randomly selected residues from the interface. Conserved residues occurring in larger interfaces could often be sub-divided into two or more distinct sub-clusters. These structural cluster(s) comprising conserved residues indicate functionally important regions within the protein-protein interface that can be targeted for further structural and energetic analysis by experimental scanning mutagenesis. Almost 60% of experimental hot spot residues (with DeltaDeltaG > 2 kcal/mol) were localized to these conserved residue clusters. An analysis of the residue types that are enriched within these conserved subsets compared to the overall interface showed that hydrophobic and aromatic residues are favored, but charged residues (both positive and negative) are less common. The potential use of this method for discriminating binding sites (interfaces) versus random surface patches was explored by comparing the clustering of conserved residues within each of these regions--in about 50% cases the true interface is ranked among the top 10% of all surface patches.

conclusionsProtein-protein interaction sites are much larger than small molecule biding sites, but still conserved residues are not randomly distributed over the whole interface and are distinctly clustered. The clustered nature of evolutionarily conserved residues within interfaces as compared to those within other surface patches not involved in binding has important implications for the identification of protein-protein binding sites and would have applications in docking studies.

Indexed as

Binding SitesModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProtein FoldingProtein Interaction MappingProteinsSequence Analysis, ProteinProteins

Identifiers

PMID20507585
PMCPMC2894039
OpenAlexW2072228739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.