Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22692765›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2012

Reducing the dimensionality of the protein-folding search problem.

George D Chellapa, George D Rose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

George D ChellapaTC Jenkins Department of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA.
George D Rose

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How does a folding protein negotiate a vast, featureless conformational landscape and adopt its native structure in biological real time? Motivated by this search problem, we developed a novel algorithm to compare protein structures. Procedures to identify structural analogs are typically conducted in three-dimensional space: the tertiary structure of a target protein is matched against each candidate in a database of structures, and goodness of fit is evaluated by a distance-based measure, such as the root-mean-square distance between target and candidate. This is an expensive approach because three-dimensional space is complex. Here, we transform the problem into a simpler one-dimensional procedure. Specifically, we identify and label the 11 most populated residue basins in a database of high-resolution protein structures. Using this 11-letter alphabet, any protein's three-dimensional structure can be transformed into a one-dimensional string by mapping each residue onto its corresponding basin. Similarity between the resultant basin strings can then be evaluated by conventional sequence-based comparison. The disorder → order folding transition is abridged on both sides. At the onset, folding conditions necessitate formation of hydrogen-bonded scaffold elements on which proteins are assembled, severely restricting the magnitude of accessible conformational space. Near the end, chain topology is established prior to emergence of the close-packed native state. At this latter stage of folding, the chain remains molten, and residues populate natural basins that are approximated by the 11 basins derived here. In essence, our algorithm reduces the protein-folding search problem to mapping the amino acid sequence onto a restricted basin string.

Indexed as

Protein FoldingAlgorithmsModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProteinsThermodynamicsProteins

Identifiers

PMID22692765
PMCPMC3537243

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.