Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23909383›Full record

ArticleBiochemistry2013

Quantifying additive interactions of the osmolyte proline with individual functional groups of proteins: comparisons with urea and glycine betaine, interpretation of m-values.

Roger C Diehl, Emily J Guinn, Michael W Capp, Oleg V Tsodikov, M Thomas Record

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biochemistry, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roger C DiehlDepartment of Biochemistry and ‡Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin , Madison, Wisconsin 53706, United States.
Emily J Guinn
Michael W Capp
Oleg V Tsodikov
M Thomas Record
University of Kentucky · US

Funding

GRADUATE TRAINING IN MOLECULAR BIOSCIENCEST32GM007215 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI HULL, CHRISTINA M · 1985 to 2018
$22.5M
THERMODYNAMIC AND NMR STUDIES ON THE E COLI CYTOPLASMR01GM047022 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI RECORD, M. THOMAS · 1992 to 2015
$4.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM47022NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM047022NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007215
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To quantify interactions of the osmolyte l-proline with protein functional groups and predict their effects on protein processes, we use vapor pressure osmometry to determine chemical potential derivatives dμ2/dm3 = μ23, quantifying the preferential interactions of proline (component 3) with 21 solutes (component 2) selected to display different combinations of aliphatic or aromatic C, amide, carboxylate, phosphate or hydroxyl O, and amide or cationic N surface. Solubility data yield μ23 values for four less-soluble solutes. Values of μ23 are dissected using an ASA-based analysis to test the hypothesis of additivity and obtain α-values (proline interaction potentials) for these eight surface types and three inorganic ions. Values of μ23 predicted from these α-values agree with the experiment, demonstrating additivity. Molecular interpretation of α-values using the solute partitioning model yields partition coefficients (Kp) quantifying the local accumulation or exclusion of proline in the hydration water of each functional group. Interactions of proline with native protein surfaces and effects of proline on protein unfolding are predicted from α-values and ASA information and compared with experimental data, with results for glycine betaine and urea, and with predictions from transfer free energy analysis. We conclude that proline stabilizes proteins because of its unfavorable interactions with (exclusion from) amide oxygens and aliphatic hydrocarbon surfaces exposed in unfolding and that proline is an effective in vivo osmolyte because of the osmolality increase resulting from its unfavorable interactions with anionic (carboxylate and phosphate) and amide oxygens and aliphatic hydrocarbon groups on the surface of cytoplasmic proteins and nucleic acids.

Indexed as

BetaineModels, ChemicalOsmolar ConcentrationProlineSerum Albumin, BovineSolubilityUreaBetaineProlineSerum Albumin, BovineUrea

Identifiers

PMID23909383
PMCPMC3830607
OpenAlexW2058704546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.