ArticleProtein engineering, design & selection : PEDS2015
Studying protein fold evolution with hybrids of differently folded homologs.
Article in Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of fold switching in a metamorphic protein.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- Multistep mutational transformation of a protein fold through structural intermediates.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2018Article
- Unraveling the Mechanical Unfolding Pathways of a Multidomain Protein: Phosphoglycerate Kinase.Biophysical journal · 2018Article
- The Role of Evolutionary Selection in the Dynamics of Protein Structure Evolution.Biophysical journal · 2017Article
- The role of negative selection in protein evolution revealed through the energetics of the native state ensemble.Proteins · 2016Article
- Evidence for the recent origin of a bacterial protein-coding, overlapping orphan gene by evolutionary overprinting.BMC evolutionary biology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To study the sequence determinants governing protein fold evolution, we generated hybrid sequences from two homologous proteins with 40% identity but different folds: Pfl 6 Cro, which has a mixed α + β structure, and Xfaso 1 Cro, which has an all α-helical structure. First, we first examined eight chimeric hybrids in which the more structurally conserved N-terminal half of one protein was fused to the more structurally divergent C-terminal half of the other. None of these chimeras folded, as judged by circular dichroism spectra and thermal melts, suggesting that both halves have strong intrinsic preferences for the native global fold pattern, and/or that the interfaces between the halves are not readily interchangeable. Second, we examined 10 hybrids in which blocks of the structurally divergent C-terminal region were exchanged. These hybrids showed varying levels of thermal stability and suggested that the key residues in the Xfaso 1 C terminus specifying the all-α fold were concentrated near the end of helix 4 in Xfaso 1, which aligns to the end of strand 2 in Pfl 6. Finally, we generated hybrid substitutions for each individual residue in this critical region and measured thermal stabilities. The results suggested that R47 and V48 were the strongest factors that excluded formation of the α + β fold in the C-terminal region of Xfaso 1. In support of this idea, we found that the folding stability of one of the original eight chimeras could be rescued by back-substituting these two residues. Overall, the results show not only that the key factors for Cro fold specificity and evolution are global and multifarious, but also that some all-α Cro proteins have a C-terminal subdomain sequence within a few substitutions of switching to the α + β fold.
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.