ArticleMethods (San Diego, Calif.)2011
Computational approaches to selecting and optimising targets for structural biology.
Article in Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-Throughput Pipeline for Protein Expression and Solubility Profiling Using Synthetically Generated Plasmids.Current protocols · 2025Article
- Saponins Form Nonionic Lipid Nanodiscs for Protein Structural Studies by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy.The journal of physical chemistry letters · 2022Article
- Critical evaluation of bioinformatics tools for the prediction of protein crystallization propensity.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2018Review
- Crysalis: an integrated server for computational analysis and design of protein crystallization.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- A critical evaluation of in silico methods for detection of membrane protein intrinsic disorder.Biophysical journal · 2014Article
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
Selection of protein targets for study is central to structural biology and may be influenced by numerous factors. A key aim is to maximise returns for effort invested by identifying proteins with the balance of biophysical properties that are conducive to success at all stages (e.g. solubility, crystallisation) in the route towards a high resolution structural model. Selected targets can be optimised through construct design (e.g. to minimise protein disorder), switching to a homologous protein, and selection of experimental methodology (e.g. choice of expression system) to prime for efficient progress through the structural proteomics pipeline. Here we discuss computational techniques in target selection and optimisation, with more detailed focus on tools developed within the Scottish Structural Proteomics Facility (SSPF); namely XANNpred, ParCrys, OB-Score (target selection) and TarO (target optimisation). TarO runs a large number of algorithms, searching for homologues and annotating the pool of possible alternative targets. This pool of putative homologues is presented in a ranked, tabulated format and results are also visualised as an automatically generated and annotated multiple sequence alignment. The target selection algorithms each predict the propensity of a selected protein target to progress through the experimental stages leading to diffracting crystals. This single predictor approach has advantages for target selection, when compared with an approach using two or more predictors that each predict for success at a single experimental stage. The tools described here helped SSPF achieve a high (21%) success rate in progressing cloned targets to diffraction-quality crystals.
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.