ArticleJournal of molecular biology2012
A phylogenetic analysis of normal modes evolution in enzymes and its relationship to enzyme function.
Article in Journal of molecular biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plant catalase in silico characterization and phylogenetic analysis with structural modeling.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2022Article
- Conservation of Dynamics Associated with Biological Function in an Enzyme Superfamily.Structure (London, England : 1993) · 2018Article
- Patterns of coevolving amino acids unveil structural and dynamical domains.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- Emerging Concepts of Data Integration in Pathogen Phylodynamics.Systematic biology · 2017Review
- Selection on protein structure, interaction, and sequence.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2016Review
- Comparison of the Internal Dynamics of Metalloproteases Provides New Insights on Their Function and Evolution.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Since the dynamic nature of protein structures is essential for enzymatic function, it is expected that functional evolution can be inferred from the changes in protein dynamics. However, dynamics can also diverge neutrally with sequence substitution between enzymes without changes of function. In this study, a phylogenetic approach is implemented to explore the relationship between enzyme dynamics and function through evolutionary history. Protein dynamics are described by normal mode analysis based on a simplified harmonic potential force field applied to the reduced C(α) representation of the protein structure while enzymatic function is described by Enzyme Commission numbers. Similarity of the binding pocket dynamics at each branch of the protein family's phylogeny was analyzed in two ways: (1) explicitly by quantifying the normal mode overlap calculated for the reconstructed ancestral proteins at each end and (2) implicitly using a diffusion model to obtain the reconstructed lineage-specific changes in the normal modes. Both explicit and implicit ancestral reconstruction identified generally faster rates of change in dynamics compared with the expected change from neutral evolution at the branches of potential functional divergences for the α-amylase, D-isomer-specific 2-hydroxyacid dehydrogenase, and copper-containing amine oxidase protein families. Normal mode analysis added additional information over just comparing the RMSD of static structures. However, the branch-specific changes were not statistically significant compared to background function-independent neutral rates of change of dynamic properties and blind application of the analysis would not enable prediction of changes in enzyme specificity.
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.