Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25268770›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

A simple extension to the CMASA method for the prediction of catalytic residues in the presence of single point mutations.

David I Flores, Rogerio R Sotelo-Mundo, Carlos A Brizuela

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

David I FloresDepartamento de Ciencias de la Computación, Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, Ensenada, Baja California, México.
Rogerio R Sotelo-MundoCentro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, A.C., Hermosillo, Sonora, México.
Carlos A BrizuelaDepartamento de Ciencias de la Computación, Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, Ensenada, Baja California, México.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The automatic identification of catalytic residues still remains an important challenge in structural bioinformatics. Sequence-based methods are good alternatives when the query shares a high percentage of identity with a well-annotated enzyme. However, when the homology is not apparent, which occurs with many structures from the structural genome initiative, structural information should be exploited. A local structural comparison is preferred to a global structural comparison when predicting functional residues. CMASA is a recently proposed method for predicting catalytic residues based on a local structure comparison. The method achieves high accuracy and a high value for the Matthews correlation coefficient. However, point substitutions or a lack of relevant data strongly affect the performance of the method. In the present study, we propose a simple extension to the CMASA method to overcome this difficulty. Extensive computational experiments are shown as proof of concept instances, as well as for a few real cases. The results show that the extension performs well when the catalytic site contains mutated residues or when some residues are missing. The proposed modification could correctly predict the catalytic residues of a mutant thymidylate synthase, 1EVF. It also successfully predicted the catalytic residues for 3HRC despite the lack of information for a relevant side chain atom in the PDB file.

Indexed as

Point MutationSoftwareAlgorithmsBiocatalysisCatalytic DomainComputational BiologyHumansModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProtein KinasesThymidylate SynthaseProtein KinasesThymidylate Synthase

Identifiers

PMID25268770
PMCPMC4182483

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.