ArticleBiophysical journal2015
Structural Perspectives on the Evolutionary Expansion of Unique Protein-Protein Binding Sites.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- CoRNeA: A Pipeline to Decrypt the Inter-Protein Interfaces from Amino Acid Sequence Information.Biomolecules · 2020Article
- Annotating Mutational Effects on Proteins and Protein Interactions: Designing Novel and Revisiting Existing Protocols.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2017Article
- Exploring Protein-Protein Interactions as Drug Targets for Anti-cancer Therapy with In Silico Workflows.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Structures of protein complexes provide atomistic insights into protein interactions. Human proteins represent a quarter of all structures in the Protein Data Bank; however, available protein complexes cover less than 10% of the human proteome. Although it is theoretically possible to infer interactions in human proteins based on structures of homologous protein complexes, it is still unclear to what extent protein interactions and binding sites are conserved, and whether protein complexes from remotely related species can be used to infer interactions and binding sites. We considered biological units of protein complexes and clustered protein-protein binding sites into similarity groups based on their structure and sequence, which allowed us to identify unique binding sites. We showed that the growth rate of the number of unique binding sites in the Protein Data Bank was much slower than the growth rate of the number of structural complexes. Next, we investigated the evolutionary roots of unique binding sites and identified the major phyletic branches with the largest expansion in the number of novel binding sites. We found that many binding sites could be traced to the universal common ancestor of all cellular organisms, whereas relatively few binding sites emerged at the major evolutionary branching points. We analyzed the physicochemical properties of unique binding sites and found that the most ancient sites were the largest in size, involved many salt bridges, and were the most compact and least planar. In contrast, binding sites that appeared more recently in the evolution of eukaryotes were characterized by a larger fraction of polar and aromatic residues, and were less compact and more planar, possibly due to their more transient nature and roles in signaling processes.
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.