ArticleBiophysical journal2016
Cryo-EM Data Are Superior to Contact and Interface Information in Integrative Modeling.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2016. 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.
- Topological deep learning for enhancing peptide-protein complex prediction.Communications chemistry · 2025Article
- Predicting the structure of large protein complexes using AlphaFold and Monte Carlo tree search.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Hybrid methods for combined experimental and computational determination of protein structure.The Journal of chemical physics · 2020Review
- Computational reconstruction of atomistic protein structures from coarse-grained models.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- Protein-peptide docking using CABS-dock and contact information.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2019Article
- The cryo-electron microscopy supramolecular structure of the bacterial stressosome unveils its mechanism of activation.Nature communications · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protein-protein interactions carry out a large variety of essential cellular processes. Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) is a powerful technique for the modeling of protein-protein interactions at a wide range of resolutions, and recent developments have caused a revolution in the field. At low resolution, cryo-EM maps can drive integrative modeling of the interaction, assembling existing structures into the map. Other experimental techniques can provide information on the interface or on the contacts between the monomers in the complex. This inevitably raises the question regarding which type of data is best suited to drive integrative modeling approaches. Systematic comparison of the prediction accuracy and specificity of the different integrative modeling paradigms is unavailable to date. Here, we compare EM-driven, interface-driven, and contact-driven integrative modeling paradigms. Models were generated for the protein docking benchmark using the ATTRACT docking engine and evaluated using the CAPRI two-star criterion. At 20 Å resolution, EM-driven modeling achieved a success rate of 100%, outperforming the other paradigms even with perfect interface and contact information. Therefore, even very low resolution cryo-EM data is superior in predicting heterodimeric and heterotrimeric protein assemblies. Our study demonstrates that a force field is not necessary, cryo-EM data alone is sufficient to accurately guide the monomers into place. The resulting rigid models successfully identify regions of conformational change, opening up perspectives for targeted flexible remodeling.
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.