ArticleThe Journal of chemical physics2014
Role of solvation in pressure-induced helix stabilization.
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.
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.
- Review
- Thermodynamic stability of hnRNP A1 low complexity domain revealed by high-pressure NMR.Proteins · 2021Article
- A Tale of Two Desolvation Potentials: An Investigation of Protein Behavior under High Hydrostatic Pressure.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2020Article
- Molecular simulations by generalized-ensemble algorithms in isothermal-isobaric ensemble.Biophysical reviews · 2019Review
- Pressure-induced structural transition of mature HIV-1 protease from a combined NMR/MD simulation approach.Proteins · 2015Article
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
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
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.