ArticleProteins2012
Electrostatics of cysteine residues in proteins: parameterization and validation of a simple model.
Article in Proteins, 2012. 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.
- Modeling predicts facile release of nitrite but not nitric oxide from the thionitrate CHScientific reports · 2024Article
- Cysteine Oxidation in Proteins: Structure, Biophysics, and Simulation.Biochemistry · 2022Review
- Detailed Structure and Pathophysiological Roles of the IgA-Albumin Complex in Multiple Myeloma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Overnutrition Determines LPS Regulation of Mycotoxin Induced Neurotoxicity in Neurodegenerative Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2015Review
- Thiol redox biochemistry: insights from computer simulations.Biophysical reviews · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One of the most popular and simple models for the calculation of pK(a) s from a protein structure is the semi-macroscopic electrostatic model MEAD. This model requires empirical parameters for each residue to calculate pK(a) s. Analysis of current, widely used empirical parameters for cysteine residues showed that they did not reproduce expected cysteine pK(a) s; thus, we set out to identify parameters consistent with the CHARMM27 force field that capture both the behavior of typical cysteines in proteins and the behavior of cysteines which have perturbed pK(a) s. The new parameters were validated in three ways: (1) calculation across a large set of typical cysteines in proteins (where the calculations are expected to reproduce expected ensemble behavior); (2) calculation across a set of perturbed cysteines in proteins (where the calculations are expected to reproduce the shifted ensemble behavior); and (3) comparison to experimentally determined pK(a) values (where the calculation should reproduce the pK(a) within experimental error). Both the general behavior of cysteines in proteins and the perturbed pK(a) in some proteins can be predicted reasonably well using the newly determined empirical parameters within the MEAD model for protein electrostatics. This study provides the first general analysis of the electrostatics of cysteines in proteins, with specific attention paid to capturing both the behavior of typical cysteines in a protein and the behavior of cysteines whose pK(a) should be shifted, and validation of force field parameters for cysteine residues.
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.