ArticlePloS one2014
How a spatial arrangement of secondary structure elements is dispersed in the universe of protein folds.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The topological properties of the protein universe.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Prediction of chaperonin GroE substrates using small structural patterns of proteins.FEBS open bio · 2023Article
- Article
- Rules for connectivity of secondary structure elements in protein: Two-layer αβ sandwiches.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2017Article
- An iterative compound screening contest method for identifying target protein inhibitors using the tyrosine-protein kinase Yes.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Importance of consensus region of multiple-ligand templates in a virtual screening method.Biophysics and physicobiology · 2016Article
- Cooperativity and modularity in protein folding.Biophysics and physicobiology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been known that topologically different proteins of the same class sometimes share the same spatial arrangement of secondary structure elements (SSEs). However, the frequency by which topologically different structures share the same spatial arrangement of SSEs is unclear. It is important to estimate this frequency because it provides both a deeper understanding of the geometry of protein folds and a valuable suggestion for predicting protein structures with novel folds. Here we clarified the frequency with which protein folds share the same SSE packing arrangement with other folds, the types of spatial arrangement of SSEs that are frequently observed across different folds, and the diversity of protein folds that share the same spatial arrangement of SSEs with a given fold, using a protein structure alignment program MICAN, which we have been developing. By performing comprehensive structural comparison of SCOP fold representatives, we found that approximately 80% of protein folds share the same spatial arrangement of SSEs with other folds. We also observed that many protein pairs that share the same spatial arrangement of SSEs belong to the different classes, often with an opposing N- to C-terminal direction of the polypeptide chain. The most frequently observed spatial arrangement of SSEs was the 2-layer α/β packing arrangement and it was dispersed among as many as 27% of SCOP fold representatives. These results suggest that the same spatial arrangements of SSEs are adopted by a wide variety of different folds and that the spatial arrangement of SSEs is highly robust against the N- to C-terminal direction of the polypeptide chain.
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.