ArticleFaraday discussions2011
Engineering enzymes.
Article in Faraday discussions, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Recent Progress Using De Novo Design to Study Protein Structure, Design and Binding Interactions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Molecular understanding of heteronuclear active sites in heme-copper oxidases, nitric oxide reductases, and sulfite reductases through biomimetic modelling.Chemical Society reviews · 2021Review
- The ascent of man(made oxidoreductases).Current opinion in structural biology · 2018Review
- Designed for life: biocompatible de novo designed proteins and components.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2018Review
- Synthetic beta-solenoid proteins with the fragment-free computational design of a beta-hairpin extension.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016Article
- Engineering and Evolution of Molecular Chaperones and Protein Disaggregases with Enhanced Activity.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2016Review
- Biochemistry and theory of proton-coupled electron transfer.Chemical reviews · 2014Review
- A protein engineered to bind uranyl selectively and with femtomolar affinity.Nature chemistry · 2014Article
- Developments in the tools and methodologies of synthetic biology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fundamental research into bioinorganic catalysis of the kind presented at this Faraday Discussion has the potential to turn inspiration drawn from impressive natural energy and chemical transformations into artificial catalyst constructions useful to mankind. Creating bio-inspired artificial constructions requires a level of understanding well beyond simple description of structures and mechanisms of natural enzymes. To be useful, such description must be augmented by a practical sense of structural and energetic engineering tolerances of the mechanism. Significant barriers to achieving an engineering understanding of enzyme mechanisms arise from natural protein complexity. In certain cases we can surmount these barriers to understanding, such as natural electron tunneling, coupling of electron tunneling to light capture and proton exchange as well as simpler bond breaking redox catalysis. Hope for similar solutions of more complex bioinorganic enzymes is indicated in several papers presented in this Discussion. Armed with an engineering understanding of mechanism, the current serious frustrations to successful creation of functional artificial proteins that are rooted in protein complexity can fall away. Here we discuss the genetic and biological roots of protein complexity and show how to dodge and minimize the effects of complexity. In the best-understood cases, artificial enzymes can be designed from scratch using the simplest of protein scaffolds.
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.