ArticleProteins2011
On the development of protein pKa calculation algorithms.
Article in Proteins, 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
- Development of constant-pH simulation methods in implicit solvent and applications in biomolecular systems.Biophysical reviews · 2017Review
- Origin of pKThe journal of physical chemistry. B · 2017Article
- DelPhiForce, a tool for electrostatic force calculations: Applications to macromolecular binding.Journal of computational chemistry · 2017Article
- Article
- Protein dielectric constants determined from NMR chemical shift perturbations.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2013Article
- Biomolecular electrostatics and solvation: a computational perspective.Quarterly reviews of biophysics · 2012Review
- Rapid calculation of protein pKa values using Rosetta.Biophysical journal · 2012Article
- A collaborative environment for developing and validating predictive tools for protein biophysical characteristics.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2012Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Protein pK(a) calculation methods are developed partly to provide fast non-experimental estimates of the ionization constants of protein side chains. However, the most significant reason for developing such methods is that a good pK(a) calculation method is presumed to provide an accurate physical model of protein electrostatics, which can be applied in methods for drug design, protein design, and other structure-based energy calculation methods. We explore the validity of this presumption by simulating the development of a pK(a) calculation method using artificial experimental data derived from a human-defined physical reality. We examine the ability of an RMSD-guided development protocol to retrieve the correct (artificial) physical reality and find that a rugged optimization landscape and a huge parameter space prevent the identification of the correct physical reality. We examine the importance of the training set in developing pK(a) calculation methods and investigate the effect of experimental noise on our ability to identify the correct physical reality, and find that both effects have a significant and detrimental impact on the physical reality of the optimal model identified. Our findings are of relevance to all structure-based methods for protein energy calculations and simulation, and have large implications for all types of current pK(a) calculation methods. Our analysis furthermore suggests that careful and extensive validation on many types of experimental data can go some way in making current models more realistic.
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.