Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22455930›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2012

Residue-specific α-helix propensities from molecular simulation.

Robert B Best, David de Sancho, Jeetain Mittal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing 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

62 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Biomolecular Condensates Dictate the Folding Landscape of Proteins.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Improving pJournal of chemical theory and computation · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Accurately Predicting Protein pJournal of chemical theory and computation · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Robert B BestDepartment of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. rbb24@cam.ac.uk
David de Sancho
Jeetain Mittal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Formation of α-helices is a fundamental process in protein folding and assembly. By studying helix formation in molecular simulations of a series of alanine-based peptides, we obtain the temperature-dependent α-helix propensities of all 20 naturally occurring residues with two recent additive force fields, Amber ff03w and Amber ff99SB(∗). Encouragingly, we find that the overall helix propensity of many residues is captured well by both energy functions, with Amber ff99SB(∗) being more accurate. Nonetheless, there are some residues that deviate considerably from experiment, which can be attributed to two aspects of the energy function: i), variations of the charge model used to determine the atomic partial charges, with residues whose backbone charges differ most from alanine tending to have the largest error; ii), side-chain torsion potentials, as illustrated by the effect of modifications to the torsion angles of I, L, D, N. We find that constrained refitting of residue charges for charged residues in Amber ff99SB(∗) significantly improves their helix propensity. The resulting parameters should more faithfully reproduce helix propensities in simulations of protein folding and disordered proteins.

Indexed as

Molecular Dynamics SimulationAmino AcidsAnimalsChickensMuramidaseProtein FoldingProtein Structure, SecondaryTemperatureUbiquitinAmino AcidsMuramidaseUbiquitin

Identifiers

PMID22455930
PMCPMC3309278

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.