Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25964355›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2015

A hypothesis to reconcile the physical and chemical unfolding of proteins.

Guilherme A P de Oliveira, Jerson L Silva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Guilherme A P de OliveiraPrograma de Biologia Estrutural, Instituto de Bioquímica Médica Leopoldo de Meis, Instituto Nacional de Biologia Estrutural e Bioimagem, Centro Nacional de Ressonância Magnética Nuclear Jiri Jonas, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 21941-590 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil jerson@bioqmed.ufrj.br gaugusto@bioqmed.ufrj.br.
Jerson L SilvaPrograma de Biologia Estrutural, Instituto de Bioquímica Médica Leopoldo de Meis, Instituto Nacional de Biologia Estrutural e Bioimagem, Centro Nacional de Ressonância Magnética Nuclear Jiri Jonas, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 21941-590 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil jerson@bioqmed.ufrj.br gaugusto@bioqmed.ufrj.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High pressure (HP) or urea is commonly used to disturb folding species. Pressure favors the reversible unfolding of proteins by causing changes in the volumetric properties of the protein-solvent system. However, no mechanistic model has fully elucidated the effects of urea on structure unfolding, even though protein-urea interactions are considered to be crucial. Here, we provide NMR spectroscopy and 3D reconstructions from X-ray scattering to develop the "push-and-pull" hypothesis, which helps to explain the initial mechanism of chemical unfolding in light of the physical events triggered by HP. In studying MpNep2 from Moniliophthora perniciosa, we tracked two cooperative units using HP-NMR as MpNep2 moved uphill in the energy landscape; this process contrasts with the overall structural unfolding that occurs upon reaching a threshold concentration of urea. At subdenaturing concentrations of urea, we were able to trap a state in which urea is preferentially bound to the protein (as determined by NMR intensities and chemical shifts); this state is still folded and not additionally exposed to solvent [fluorescence and small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS)]. This state has a higher susceptibility to pressure denaturation (lower p1/2 and larger ΔVu); thus, urea and HP share concomitant effects of urea binding and pulling and water-inducing pushing, respectively. These observations explain the differences between the molecular mechanisms that control the physical and chemical unfolding of proteins, thus opening up new possibilities for the study of protein folding and providing an interpretation of the nature of cooperativity in the folding and unfolding processes.

Indexed as

Models, MolecularAgaricalesAnimalsBiophysical PhenomenaFungal ProteinsHumansHydrostatic PressureMolecular Dynamics SimulationNuclear Magnetic Resonance, BiomolecularProtein ConformationProtein DenaturationProtein FoldingProto-Oncogene Proteins c-ablScattering, Small AngleSpectrometry, FluorescenceStatic ElectricityFungal ProteinsProto-Oncogene Proteins c-ablUreahydrostatic pressureNMRprotein foldingSAXSurea

Identifiers

PMID25964355
PMCPMC4450381

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.