Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25286318›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

The intrinsically disordered regions of the Drosophila melanogaster Hox protein ultrabithorax select interacting proteins based on partner topology.

Hao-Ching Hsiao, Kim L Gonzalez, Daniel J Catanese, Kristopher E Jordy, Kathleen S Matthews, Sarah E Bondos

Open access · goldAbstract 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Interactions by Disorder - A Matter of Context.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Mechanisms of Specificity for Hox Factor Activity.Journal of developmental biology · 2016
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hao-Ching HsiaoReynolds Medical Building, Department of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Texas A&M Health Science Center, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Kim L GonzalezReynolds Medical Building, Department of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Texas A&M Health Science Center, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Daniel J CataneseDepartment of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Rice University, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Kristopher E JordyDepartment of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Rice University, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Kathleen S MatthewsDepartment of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Rice University, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Sarah E BondosReynolds Medical Building, Department of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Texas A&M Health Science Center, College Station, Texas, United States of America; Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Rice University, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Rice University · USTexas A&M Health Science Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interactions between structured proteins require a complementary topology and surface chemistry to form sufficient contacts for stable binding. However, approximately one third of protein interactions are estimated to involve intrinsically disordered regions of proteins. The dynamic nature of disordered regions before and, in some cases, after binding calls into question the role of partner topology in forming protein interactions. To understand how intrinsically disordered proteins identify the correct interacting partner proteins, we evaluated interactions formed by the Drosophila melanogaster Hox transcription factor Ultrabithorax (Ubx), which contains both structured and disordered regions. Ubx binding proteins are enriched in specific folds: 23 of its 39 partners include one of 7 folds, out of the 1195 folds recognized by SCOP. For the proteins harboring the two most populated folds, DNA-RNA binding 3-helical bundles and α-α superhelices, the regions of the partner proteins that exhibit these preferred folds are sufficient for Ubx binding. Three disorder-containing regions in Ubx are required to bind these partners. These regions are either alternatively spliced or multiply phosphorylated, providing a mechanism for cellular processes to regulate Ubx-partner interactions. Indeed, partner topology correlates with the ability of individual partner proteins to bind Ubx spliceoforms. Partners bind different disordered regions within Ubx to varying extents, creating the potential for competition between partners and cooperative binding by partners. The ability of partners to bind regions of Ubx that activate transcription and regulate DNA binding provides a mechanism for partners to modulate transcription regulation by Ubx, and suggests that one role of disorder in Ubx is to coordinate multiple molecular functions in response to tissue-specific cues.

Indexed as

Alternative SplicingAmino Acid SequenceAnimalsBase SequenceBinding SitesDNADrosophila melanogasterDrosophila ProteinsHomeodomain ProteinsIntrinsically Disordered ProteinsMolecular Sequence DataMutant ProteinsProtein BindingProtein Interaction MappingProtein IsoformsProtein Structure, SecondaryDNADrosophila ProteinsHomeodomain ProteinsIntrinsically Disordered ProteinsMutant ProteinsProtein IsoformsProteomeTranscription FactorsUbx protein, Drosophila

Identifiers

PMID25286318
PMCPMC4186791
OpenAlexW2056034569

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.