ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2013
Quantification of Drive-Response Relationships Between Residues During Protein Folding.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Granger Causality Analysis of Chignolin Folding.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2022Article
- Cross-Sectoral Information Transfer in the Chinese Stock Market around Its Crash in 2015.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Entropy Transfer between Residue Pairs and Allostery in Proteins: Quantifying Allosteric Communication in Ubiquitin.PLoS computational biology · 2017Article
- Roles of glycans in interactions between gp120 and HIV broadly neutralizing antibodies.Glycobiology · 2016Article
- Preferred conformations of N-glycan core pentasaccharide in solution and in glycoproteins.Glycobiology · 2016Article
- Structure and dynamics analysis on plexin-B1 Rho GTPase binding domain as a monomer and dimer.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Mutual correlation and cooperativity are commonly used to describe residue-residue interactions in protein folding/function. However, these metrics do not provide any information on the causality relationships between residues. Such drive-response relationships are poorly studied in protein folding/function and difficult to measure experimentally due to technical limitations. In this study, using the information theory transfer entropy (TE) that provides a direct measurement of causality between two times series, we have quantified the drive-response relationships between residues in the folding/unfolding processes of four small proteins generated by molecular dynamics simulations. Instead of using a time-averaged single TE value, the time-dependent TE is measured with the Q-scores based on residue-residue contacts and with the statistical significance analysis along the folding/unfolding processes. The TE analysis is able to identify the driving and responding residues that are different from the highly correlated residues revealed by the mutual information analysis. In general, the driving residues have more regular secondary structures, are more buried, and show greater effects on the protein stability as well as folding and unfolding rates. In addition, the dominant driving and responding residues from the TE analysis on the whole trajectory agree with those on a single folding event, demonstrating that the drive-response relationships are preserved in the non-equilibrium process. Our study provides detailed insights into the protein folding process and has potential applications in protein engineering and interpretation of time-dependent residue-based experimental observables for protein function.
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.