Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20691107›Full record

ArticleBMC structural biology2010

Comparing interfacial dynamics in protein-protein complexes: an elastic network approach.

Andrea Zen, Cristian Micheletti, Ozlem Keskin, Ruth Nussinov

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC structural biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Patterns of coevolving amino acids unveil structural and dynamical domains.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Challenges in structural approaches to cell modeling.Journal of molecular biology · 2016
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Low-resolution structural modeling of protein interactome.Current opinion in structural biology · 2013
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Dynamic features of homodimer interfaces calculated by normal-mode analysis.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2012
    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

4 authors.

Andrea ZenSISSA, Democritos CNR-IOM and Italian Institute of Technology, Via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste, Italy.
Cristian Micheletti
Ozlem Keskin
Ruth Nussinov

Funding

Biomolecular Recognition and Binding MechanismsZIABC010441 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI NUSSINOV, RUTH · 2009 to 2025
$9.4M
Intramural NIH HHSPHS HHS HHSN261200800001E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe transient, or permanent, association of proteins to form organized complexes is one of the most common mechanisms of regulation of biological processes. Systematic physico-chemical studies of the binding interfaces have previously shown that a key mechanism for the formation/stabilization of dimers is the steric and chemical complementarity of the two semi-interfaces. The role of the fluctuation dynamics at the interface of the interacting subunits, although expectedly important, proved more elusive to characterize. The aim of the present computational study is to gain insight into salient dynamics-based aspects of protein-protein interfaces.

resultsThe interface dynamics was characterized by means of an elastic network model for 22 representative dimers covering three main interface types. The three groups gather dimers sharing the same interface but with good (type I) or poor (type II) similarity of the overall fold, or dimers sharing only one of the semi-interfaces (type III). The set comprises obligate dimers, which are complexes for which no structural representative of the free form(s) is available. Considerations were accordingly limited to bound and unbound forms of the monomeric subunits of the dimers. We proceeded by first computing the mobility of amino acids at the interface of the bound forms and compare it with the mobility of (i) other surface amino acids (ii) interface amino acids in the unbound forms. In both cases different dynamic patterns were observed across interface types and depending on whether the interface belongs to an obligate or non-obligate complex.

conclusionsThe comparative investigation indicated that the mobility of amino acids at the dimeric interface is generally lower than for other amino acids at the protein surface. The change in interfacial mobility upon removing "in silico" the partner monomer (unbound form) was next found to be correlated with the interface type, size and obligate nature of the complex. In particular, going from the unbound to the bound forms, the interfacial mobility is noticeably reduced for dimers with type I interfaces, while it is largely unchanged for type II ones. The results suggest that these structurally- and biologically-different types of interfaces are stabilized by different balancing mechanisms between enthalpy and conformational entropy.

Indexed as

Amino AcidsComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinElasticityMovementProtein BindingProtein MultimerizationProteinsProtein Structure, QuaternaryTemperatureAmino AcidsProteins

Identifiers

PMID20691107
PMCPMC2927602

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.