Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21498105›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in chemical biology2011

Protein stability by number: high-throughput and statistical approaches to one of protein science's most difficult problems.

Thomas J Magliery, Jason J Lavinder, Brandon J Sullivan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in chemical biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Fluorescence-Based Protein Stability Monitoring-A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Modeling protein folding in vivo.Biology direct · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Consensus protein design.Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS · 2016
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Thomas J MaglieryDepartment of Chemistry, The Ohio State University, 100 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. magliery@chemistry.ohio-state.edu
Jason J Lavinder
Brandon J Sullivan

Funding

Training and Education CoreU54NS058183 · NINDS · U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH INST CHEM DEF · PI CERASOLI, DOUGLAS MARK, MAGLIERY, THOMAS J · 2006 to 2013
$20.6M
Combinatorial biophysics: Understanding protein stability with library approachesR01GM083114 · NIGMS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI MAGLIERY, THOMAS J · 2008 to 2017
$2.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM083114NINDS NIH HHS U54 NS058183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most proteins are only barely stable, which impedes research, complicates therapeutic applications, and makes proteins susceptible to pathologically destabilizing mutations. Our ability to predict the thermodynamic consequences of even single point mutations is still surprisingly limited, and established methods of measuring stability are slow. Recent advances are bringing protein stability studies into the high-throughput realm. Some methods are based on inferential read-outs such as activity, proteolytic resistance or split-protein fragment reassembly. Other methods use miniaturization of direct measurements, such as intrinsic fluorescence, H/D exchange, cysteine reactivity, aggregation and hydrophobic dye binding (DSF). Protein engineering based on statistical analysis (consensus and correlated occurrences of amino acids) is promising, but much work remains to understand and implement these methods.

Indexed as

Protein EngineeringProtein StabilityProteinsThermodynamicsProteins

Identifiers

PMID21498105
PMCPMC3110604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.