ArticleThe journal of physical chemistry. B2016
Quantitative Correlation of Conformational Binding Enthalpy with Substrate Specificity of Serine Proteases.
Article in The journal of physical chemistry. B, 2016. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ligand-induced conformational selection predicts the selectivity of cysteine protease inhibitors.PloS one · 2019Article
- Electrostatic recognition in substrate binding to serine proteases.Journal of molecular recognition : JMR · 2018Article
- 3D proteochemometrics: using three-dimensional information of proteins and ligands to address aspects of the selectivity of serine proteases.MedChemComm · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Members of the same protease family show different substrate specificity, even if they share identical folds, depending on the physiological processes they are part of. Here, we investigate the key factors for subpocket and global specificity of factor Xa, elastase, and granzyme B which despite all being serine proteases and sharing the chymotrypsin-fold show distinct substrate specificity profiles. We determined subpocket interaction potentials with GRID for static X-ray structures and an in silico generated ensemble of conformations. Subpocket interaction potentials determined for static X-ray structures turned out to be insufficient to explain serine protease specificity for all subpockets. Therefore, we generated conformational ensembles using molecular dynamics simulations. We identified representative binding site conformations using distance-based hierarchical agglomerative clustering and determined subpocket interaction potentials for each representative conformation of the binding site. Considering the differences in subpocket interaction potentials for these representative conformations as well as their abundance allowed us to quantitatively explain subpocket specificity for the nonprime side for all three example proteases on a molecular level. The methods to identify key regions determining subpocket specificity introduced in this study are directly applicable to other serine proteases, and the results provide starting points for new strategies in rational drug design.
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.