Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24917483›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2015

Oligomerization and nanocluster organization render specificity.

Ruth Nussinov, Hyunbum Jang, Chung-Jung Tsai

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. B-Raf autoinhibition in the presence and absence of 14-3-3.Structure (London, England : 1993) · 2021
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Intrinsic protein disorder in oncogenic KRAS signaling.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2017
    Review
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

3 authors.

Ruth NussinovCancer and Inflammation Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Frederick National Laboratory, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD 21702, U.S.A.; Department of Human Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Sackler Institute of Molecular Medicine, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel.
Hyunbum Jang
Chung-Jung Tsai

Funding

Biomolecular Recognition and Binding MechanismsZIABC010441 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI NUSSINOV, RUTH · 2009 to 2025
$9.4M
Biomolecular Recognition and Binding MechanismsZ01BC010441 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI NUSSINOV, RUTH · 2002 to 2008
$1.2M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CIntramural NIH HHS Z01 BC010441NCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanoclusters are anchored to membranes, either within them or in the cytoplasm latched onto the cytoskeleton, whose reorganization can regulate their activity. Nanoclusters have been viewed in terms of cooperativity and activation; here we perceive nanocluster organization from a conformational standpoint. This leads us to suggest that while single molecules encode activity, nanoclusters induce specificity, and that this is their main evolutionary aim. Distinct, isoform-specific nanocluster organization can drive the preferred effector (and ligand) interactions and thereby designate signalling pathways. The absence of detailed structural information across the nanocluster, due to size and dynamics, hinders an in-depth grasp of its mechanistic features; however, available data already capture some of the principles and their functional 'raison d'être'. Collectively, clustering lends stability and reduces the likelihood of proteolytic cleavage; it also increases the effective local concentration and enables efficient cooperative activation. However, clustering does not determine the ability of the single molecule to function. Drugs targeting nanoclusters can attenuate activity by hampering cooperativity; however, this may not perturb activation and signalling, which originate from the molecules themselves, and as such, are likely to endure. What then is the major role of nanoclustering? Assuming that single molecules evolved first, with a subsequent increase in cellular complexity and emergence of highly similar isoform variants, evolution faced the threat of signalling promiscuity. We reason that this potential risk was thwarted by oligomerization and clustering; clustering confers higher specificity, and a concomitant extra layer of cellular control. In our Ras example, signalling will be more accurate as a dimer than as a monomer, where its isomer specificity could be compromised.

Indexed as

Cell CommunicationCell MembraneCytoskeletonGene Expression RegulationLipidsMembrane MicrodomainsLipidsallostericallosteryco-localizationconformational statescytoskeletonmicroclustersnanoclustersoligomerizationRasscaffoldingsignallingstructure

Identifiers

PMID24917483
PMCPMC4263682

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.