ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2013
Physics-based method to validate and repair flaws in protein structures.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 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.
- Fifty years of biophysics in Argentina.Biophysical reviews · 2023Article
- Article
- Protein structure refinement using a quantum mechanics-based chemical shielding predictor.Chemical science · 2017Article
- Article
- My 65 years in protein chemistry.Quarterly reviews of biophysics · 2015Review
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A method that makes use of information provided by the combination of (13)C(α) and (13)C(β) chemical shifts, computed at the density functional level of theory, enables one to (i) validate, at the residue level, conformations of proteins and detect backbone or side-chain flaws by taking into account an ensemble average of chemical shifts over all of the conformations used to represent a protein, with a sensitivity of ∼90%; and (ii) provide a set of (χ1/χ2) torsional angles that leads to optimal agreement between the observed and computed (13)C(α) and (13)C(β) chemical shifts. The method has been incorporated into the CheShift-2 protein validation Web server. To test the reliability of the provided set of (χ1/χ2) torsional angles, the side chains of all reported conformations of five NMR-determined protein models were refined by a simple routine, without using NOE-based distance restraints. The refinement of each of these five proteins leads to optimal agreement between the observed and computed (13)C(α) and (13)C(β) chemical shifts for ∼94% of the flaws, on average, without introducing a significantly large number of violations of the NOE-based distance restraints for a distance range ≤ 0.5 , in which the largest number of distance violations occurs. The results of this work suggest that use of the provided set of (χ1/χ2) torsional angles together with other observables, such as NOEs, should lead to a fast and accurate refinement of the side-chain conformations of protein models.
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.