Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25102772›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in structural biology2014

Convergent and divergent mechanisms of sugar recognition across kingdoms.

Maureen E Taylor, Kurt Drickamer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in structural biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Soluble Human Lectins at the Host-Microbe Interface.Annual review of biochemistry · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Secondary Sites of the C-type Lectin-Like Fold.Chemistry (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Elucidating the glycan-binding specificity and structure ofBeilstein journal of organic chemistry · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. LectinOracle: A Generalizable Deep Learning Model for Lectin-Glycan Binding Prediction.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Maureen E TaylorDepartment of Life Sciences, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Kurt DrickamerDepartment of Life Sciences, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. Electronic address: k.drickamer@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K007718/1Wellcome Trust 093599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein modules that bind specific oligosaccharides are found across all kingdoms of life from single-celled organisms to man. Different, overlapping and evolving designations for sugar-binding domains in proteins can sometimes obscure common features that often reflect convergent solutions to the problem of distinguishing sugars with closely similar structures and binding them with sufficient affinity to achieve biologically meaningful results. Structural and functional analysis has revealed striking parallels between protein domains with widely different structures and evolutionary histories that employ common solutions to the sugar recognition problem. Recent studies also demonstrate that domains descended from common ancestors through divergent evolution appear more widely across the kingdoms of life than had previously been recognized.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularBinding SitesCarbohydratesModels, MolecularMonosaccharidesProtein BindingProtein FoldingProteinsCarbohydratesMonosaccharidesProteins

Identifiers

PMID25102772
PMCPMC4444583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.