ArticleThe Journal of biological chemistry2014
Global shape and ligand binding efficiency of the HIV-1-neutralizing antibodies differ from those of antibodies that cannot neutralize HIV-1.
Article in The Journal of biological chemistry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Loss of Motor Protein MYO1C Causes Rhodopsin Mislocalization and Results in Impaired Visual Function.Cells · 2021Article
- Heat induces end to end repetitive association in P. furiosus L-asparaginase which enables its thermophilic property.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- L-Asparaginase of Leishmania donovani: Metabolic target and its role in Amphotericin B resistance.International journal for parasitology. Drugs and drug resistance · 2017Article
- Mechanism of increased clearance of glycated albumin by proximal tubule cells.American journal of physiology. Renal physiology · 2016Article
- Insights into open/closed conformations of the catalytically active human guanylate kinase as investigated by small-angle X-ray scattering.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Asymmetric disposition of Fab arms in the structures solved for the broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibody (nmAb) IgG1 b12 raised the question of whether the unusual shape observed for b12 is common for all IgG1 mAbs or if there is a difference in the overall shape of nmAbs versus non-nmAbs. We compared small angle x-ray scattering (SAXS) data-based models and limited proteolysis profiles of some IgG1 mAbs known to be having and lacking HIV-1 neutralizing potency. In non-nmAbs, the Fab arms were found to be symmetrically disposed in space relative to central Fc, but in most nmAbs, the Fab arms were asymmetrically disposed, as seen for IgG1 b12. The only exceptions were 2G12 and 4E10, where both Fab arms were closed above Fc, suggesting some Fab-Fc and/or Fab-Fab interaction in the nmAbs that constrained extension of the Fab-Fc linker. Interestingly, these observations were correlated with differential proteolysis profiles of the mAbs by papain. Under conditions when papain could cut both Fab arms of non-nmAbs, only one Fab arm could be removed from neutralizing ones (except for 2G12 and 4E10). Chromatography and small angle x-ray scattering results of papain-digested products revealed that 1) the Fab-Fc or Fab-Fab interactions in unliganded mAbs are retained in digested products, and 2) whereas anti-gp120 non-nmAbs could bind two gp120 molecules, nmAbs could bind only one gp120. Additional experiments showed that except for 2G12 and 4E10, unopen shapes of nmAbs remain uninfluenced by ionic strength but can be reversibly opened by low pH of buffer accompanied by loss of ligand binding ability.
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.