Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25494793›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of chemical physics2014

Role of solvation in pressure-induced helix stabilization.

Robert B Best, Cayla Miller, Jeetain Mittal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of chemical physics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Robert B BestLaboratory of Chemical Physics, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-0520, USA.
Cayla MillerDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015, USA.
Jeetain MittalDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015, USA.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In contrast to the well-known destabilization of globular proteins by high pressure, recent work has shown that pressure stabilizes the formation of isolated α-helices. However, all simulations to date have obtained a qualitatively opposite result within the experimental pressure range. We show that using a protein force field (Amber03w) parametrized in conjunction with an accurate water model (TIP4P/2005) recovers the correct pressure-dependence and an overall stability diagram for helix formation similar to that from experiment; on the other hand, we confirm that using TIP3P water results in a very weak pressure destabilization of helices. By carefully analyzing the contributing factors, we show that this is not merely a consequence of different peptide conformations sampled using TIP3P. Rather, there is a critical role for the solvent itself in determining the dependence of total system volume (peptide and solvent) on helix content. Helical peptide structures exclude a smaller volume to water, relative to non-helical structures with both the water models, but the total system volume for helical conformations is higher than non-helical conformations with TIP3P water at low to intermediate pressures, in contrast to TIP4P/2005 water. Our results further emphasize the importance of using an accurate water model to study protein folding under conditions away from standard temperature and pressure.

Indexed as

PeptidesPressureProtein FoldingProtein StabilityProtein Structure, SecondaryThermodynamicsWaterPeptidesWater

Identifiers

PMID25494793
PMCPMC4235627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.