Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26594372›Full record

ArticleIUCrJ2015

Changes in protein structure at the interface accompanying complex formation.

Devlina Chakravarty, Joël Janin, Charles H Robert, Pinak Chakrabarti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IUCrJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. PP2A is activated by cytochromeComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. MENSAdb: a thorough structural analysis of membrane protein dimers.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. The R882H substitution in the humanThe Journal of biological chemistry · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Devlina ChakravartyDepartment of Biochemistry, Bose Institute , P-1/12 CIT Scheme VIIM, Kolkata 700 054, India.
Joël JaninIBBMC, CNRS UMR 8619, Universite Paris-Sud 11 , Orsay, France.
Charles H RobertCNRS Laboratoire de Biochimie Theorique, Institut de Biologie Physico-Chimique (IBPC), Universite Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité , 13 Rue Pierre et Marie Curie, 75005 Paris, France.
Pinak ChakrabartiDepartment of Biochemistry, Bose Institute , P-1/12 CIT Scheme VIIM, Kolkata 700 054, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein interactions are essential in all biological processes. The changes brought about in the structure when a free component forms a complex with another molecule need to be characterized for a proper understanding of molecular recognition as well as for the successful implementation of docking algorithms. Here, unbound (U) and bound (B) forms of protein structures from the Protein-Protein Interaction Affinity Database are compared in order to enumerate the changes that occur at the interface atoms/residues in terms of the solvent-accessible surface area (ASA), secondary structure, temperature factors (B factors) and disorder-to-order transitions. It is found that the interface atoms optimize contacts with the atoms in the partner protein, which leads to an increase in their ASA in the bound interface in the majority (69%) of the proteins when compared with the unbound interface, and this is independent of the root-mean-square deviation between the U and B forms. Changes in secondary structure during the transition indicate a likely extension of helices and strands at the expense of turns and coils. A reduction in flexibility during complex formation is reflected in the decrease in B factors of the interface residues on going from the U form to the B form. There is, however, no distinction in flexibility between the interface and the surface in the monomeric structure, thereby highlighting the potential problem of using B factors for the prediction of binding sites in the unbound form for docking another protein. 16% of the proteins have missing (disordered) residues in the U form which are observed (ordered) in the B form, mostly with an irregular conformation; the data set also shows differences in the composition of interface and non-interface residues in the disordered polypeptide segments as well as differences in their surface burial.

Indexed as

bioinformaticsbound and unbound protein formscrystallographic temperature factordisorder–order transitioninterface areamolecular recognitionprotein flexibilityprotein–protein interactionssecondary structure

Identifiers

PMID26594372
PMCPMC4645109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.