ArticleBiopolymers2014
Guided reconstitution of membrane protein fragments.
Article in Biopolymers, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural characterization of triple transmembrane domain containing fragments of a yeast G protein-coupled receptor in an organic : aqueous environment by solution-state NMR spectroscopy.Journal of peptide science : an official publication of the European Peptide Society · 2015Article
- Bi-specific splice-switching PMO oligonucleotides conjugated via a single peptide active in a mouse model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Nucleic acids research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Structural analysis by NMR of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) has proven to be extremely challenging. To reduce the number of peaks in the NMR spectra by segmentally labeling a GPCR, we have developed a Guided Reconstitution method that includes the use of charged residues and Cys activation to drive heterodimeric disulfide bond formation. Three different cysteine-activating reagents: 5-5'-dithiobis(2-nitrobenzoic acid) [DTNB], 2,2'-dithiobis(5-nitropyridine) [DTNP], and 4,4'-dipyridyl disulfide [4-PDS] were analyzed to determine their efficiency in heterodimer formation at different pHs. Short peptides representing the N-terminal (NT) and C-terminal (CT) regions of the first extracellular loop (EL1) of Ste2p, the Saccharomyces cerevisiae alpha-factor mating receptor, were activated using these reagents and the efficiencies of activation and rates of heterodimerization were analyzed. Activation of NT peptides with DTNP and 4-PDS resulted in about 60% yield, but heterodimerization was rapid and nearly quantitative. Double transmembrane domain protein fragments were biosynthesized and used in Guided Reconstitution reactions. A 102-residue fragment, 2TM-tail [Ste2p(G31-I120C)], was heterodimerized with CT-EL1-tail(DTNP) at pH 4.6 with a yield of ∼75%. A 132-residue fragment, 2TMlong-tail [Ste2p(M1-I120C)], was expressed in both unlabeled and (15)N-labeled forms and used with a peptide comprising the third transmembrane domain, to generate a 180-residue segmentally labeled 3TM protein that was found to be segmentally labeled using [(15)N,(1)H]-HSQC analysis. Our data indicate that the Guided Reconstitution method would be applicable to the segmental labeling of a membrane protein with 3 transmembrane domains and may prove useful in the preparation of an intact reconstituted GPCR for use in biophysical analysis and structure determination.
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.