Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21281584›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2011

Accounting for protein-solvent contacts facilitates design of nonaggregating lattice proteins.

Sanne Abeln, Daan Frenkel

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Sanne AbelnCentre for Integrative Bioinformatics VU (IBIVU), VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.abeln@vu.nl.
Daan FrenkelDepartment of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The folding specificity of proteins can be simulated using simplified structural models and knowledge-based pair-potentials. However, when the same models are used to simulate systems that contain many proteins, large aggregates tend to form. In other words, these models cannot account for the fact that folded, globular proteins are soluble. Here we show that knowledge-based pair-potentials, which include explicitly calculated energy terms between the solvent and each amino acid, enable the simulation of proteins that are much less aggregation-prone in the folded state. Our analysis clarifies why including a solvent term improves the foldability. The aggregation for potentials without water is due to the unrealistically attractive interactions between polar residues, causing artificial clustering. When a water-based potential is used instead, polar residues prefer to interact with water; this leads to designed protein surfaces rich in polar residues and well-defined hydrophobic cores, as observed in real protein structures. We developed a simple knowledge-based method to calculate interactions between the solvent and amino acids. The method provides a starting point for modeling the folding and aggregation of soluble proteins. Analysis of our simple model suggests that inclusion of these solvent terms may also improve off-lattice potentials for protein simulation, design, and structure prediction.

Indexed as

Models, MolecularProtein Structure, QuaternaryComputer SimulationProtein FoldingProteinsSolventsTransition TemperatureWaterProteinsSolventsWater

Identifiers

PMID21281584
PMCPMC3030183
OpenAlexW2072945932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.