ArticleBiophysical journal2013
Single-molecule studies on PolySUMO proteins reveal their mechanical flexibility.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanomechanics combined with HDX reveals allosteric drug binding sites of CFTR NBD1.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- SUMO-Targeted Ubiquitin Ligases and Their Functions in Maintaining Genome Stability.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Lessons to Learn for Adequate Targeted Therapy Development in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Next Generation Methods for Single-Molecule Force Spectroscopy on Polyproteins and Receptor-Ligand Complexes.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Review
- Broken force dispersal network in tip-links by the mutations at the CaThe Biochemical journal · 2019Article
- Role of Resultant Dipole Moment in Mechanical Dissociation of Biological Complexes.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Differences in the mechanical unfolding pathways of apo- and copper-bound azurins.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Single-molecule Force Spectroscopy Reveals the Calcium Dependence of the Alternative Conformations in the Native State of a βγ-Crystallin Protein.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2016Article
- Modular, Nondegenerate Polyprotein Scaffolds for Atomic Force Spectroscopy.Biomacromolecules · 2016Article
- Small peptide binding stiffens the ubiquitin-like protein SUMO1.Biophysical journal · 2015Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proteins with β-sandwich and β-grasp topologies are resistant to mechanical unfolding as shown by single-molecule force spectroscopy studies. Their high mechanical stability has generally been associated with the mechanical clamp geometry present at the termini. However, there is also evidence for the importance of interactions other than the mechanical clamp in providing mechanical stability, which needs to be tested thoroughly. Here, we report the mechanical unfolding properties of ubiquitin-like proteins (SUMO1 and SUMO2) and their comparison with those of ubiquitin. Although ubiquitin and SUMOs have similar size and structural topology, they differ in their sequences and structural contacts, making them ideal candidates to understand the variations in the mechanical stability of a given protein topology. We observe a two-state unfolding pathway for SUMO1 and SUMO2, similar to that of ubiquitin. Nevertheless, the unfolding forces of SUMO1 (∼130 pN) and SUMO2 (∼120 pN) are lower than that of ubiquitin (∼190 pN) at a pulling speed of 400 nm/s, indicating their lower mechanical stability. The mechanical stabilities of SUMO proteins and ubiquitin are well correlated with the number of interresidue contacts present in their structures. From pulling speed-dependent mechanical unfolding experiments and Monte Carlo simulations, we find that the unfolding potential widths of SUMO1 (∼0.51 nm) and SUMO2 (∼0.33 nm) are much larger than that of ubiquitin (∼0.19 nm), indicating that SUMO1 is six times and SUMO2 is three times mechanically more flexible than ubiquitin. These findings might also be important in understanding the functional differences between ubiquitin and SUMOs.
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.