ArticleProteins2013
Predicting protein-DNA interactions by full search computational docking.
Article in Proteins, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considering both small and large scale motions of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is crucial for reliably predicting its binding affinities to DNA aptamers.RSC advances · 2021Article
- Computational structure modeling for diverse categories of macromolecular interactions.Current opinion in structural biology · 2020Review
- Molecular Modeling Applied to Nucleic Acid-Based Molecule Development.Biomolecules · 2018Review
- Principles and Overview of Sampling Methods for Modeling Macromolecular Structure and Dynamics.PLoS computational biology · 2016Review
- A human transcription factor in search mode.Nucleic acids research · 2016Article
- C-Terminal Domain of Integrase Binds between the Two Active Sites.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Protein-DNA interactions are essential for many biological processes. X-ray crystallography can provide high-resolution structures, but protein-DNA complexes are difficult to crystallize and typically contain only small DNA fragments. Thus, there is a need for computational methods that can provide useful predictions to give insights into mechanisms and guide the design of new experiments. We used the program DOT, which performs an exhaustive, rigid-body search between two macromolecules, to investigate four diverse protein-DNA interactions. Here, we compare our computational results with subsequent experimental data on related systems. In all cases, the experimental data strongly supported our structural hypotheses from the docking calculations: a mechanism for weak, nonsequence-specific DNA binding by a transcription factor, a large DNA-binding footprint on the surface of the DNA-repair enzyme uracil-DNA glycosylase (UNG), viral and host DNA-binding sites on the catalytic domain of HIV integrase, and a three-DNA-contact model of the linker histone bound to the nucleosome. In the case of UNG, the experimental design was based on the DNA-binding surface found by docking, rather than the much smaller surface observed in the crystallographic structure. These comparisons demonstrate that the DOT electrostatic energy gives a good representation of the distinctive electrostatic properties of DNA and DNA-binding proteins. The large, favourably ranked clusters resulting from the dockings identify active sites, map out large DNA-binding sites, and reveal multiple DNA contacts with a protein. Thus, computational docking can not only help to identify protein-DNA interactions in the absence of a crystal structure, but also expand structural understanding beyond known crystallographic structures.
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.