ArticleBMC structural biology2010
Comparing interfacial dynamics in protein-protein complexes: an elastic network approach.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synchronized motion of interface residues for evaluating protein-RNA complex binding affinity: Application to aptamer-mediated inhibition of TDP-43 aggregates.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024Article
- Modeling the Dynamics of Protein-Protein Interfaces, How and Why?Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Same but not alike: Structure, flexibility and energetics of domains in multi-domain proteins are influenced by the presence of other domains.PLoS computational biology · 2018Article
- Dissecting conformational changes in APP's transmembrane domain linked to ε-efficiency in familial Alzheimer's disease.PloS one · 2018Article
- Patterns of coevolving amino acids unveil structural and dynamical domains.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- Comparative Study of Elastic Network Model and Protein Contact Network for Protein Complexes: The Hemoglobin Case.BioMed research international · 2017Article
- Challenges in structural approaches to cell modeling.Journal of molecular biology · 2016Review
- Protein Ensembles: How Does Nature Harness Thermodynamic Fluctuations for Life? The Diverse Functional Roles of Conformational Ensembles in the Cell.Chemical reviews · 2016Review
- Cardiac Troponin and Tropomyosin: Structural and Cellular Perspectives to Unveil the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Phenotype.Frontiers in physiology · 2016Review
- Article
- Specialized Dynamical Properties of Promiscuous Residues Revealed by Simulated Conformational Ensembles.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2013Article
- The role of electrostatic energy in prediction of obligate protein-protein interactions.Proteome science · 2013Article
- Surface dynamics in allosteric regulation of protein-protein interactions: modulation of calmodulin functions by Ca2+.PLoS computational biology · 2013Article
- Low-resolution structural modeling of protein interactome.Current opinion in structural biology · 2013Review
- Counterbalance of ligand- and self-coupled motions characterizes multispecificity of ubiquitin.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2013Article
- Dynamic features of homodimer interfaces calculated by normal-mode analysis.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.