ReviewF1000Research2016
How special is the biochemical function of native proteins?
Review in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neurodegeneration Through the Lens of Bioinformatics Approaches: Computational Mechanisms of Protein Misfolding.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- De novo protein fold families expand the designable ligand binding site space.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Is the hydrophobic core a universal structural element in proteins?Journal of molecular modeling · 2017Article
- On the importance of composite protein multiple ligand interactions in protein pockets.Journal of computational chemistry · 2017Article
- Why Is There a Glass Ceiling for Threading Based Protein Structure Prediction Methods?The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2017Article
- Perspective: On the importance of hydrodynamic interactions in the subcellular dynamics of macromolecules.The Journal of chemical physics · 2016Article
- Catalytic and substrate promiscuity: distinct multiple chemistries catalysed by the phosphatase domain of receptor protein tyrosine phosphatase.The Biochemical journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Native proteins perform an amazing variety of biochemical functions, including enzymatic catalysis, and can engage in protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions that are essential for life. A key question is how special are these functional properties of proteins. Are they extremely rare, or are they an intrinsic feature? Comparison to the properties of compact conformations of artificially generated compact protein structures selected for thermodynamic stability but not any type of function, the artificial (ART) protein library, demonstrates that a remarkable number of the properties of native-like proteins are recapitulated. These include the complete set of small molecule ligand-binding pockets and most protein-protein interfaces. ART structures are predicted to be capable of weakly binding metabolites and cover a significant fraction of metabolic pathways, with the most enriched pathways including ancient ones such as glycolysis. Native-like active sites are also found in ART proteins. A small fraction of ART proteins are predicted to have strong protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions. Overall, it appears that biochemical function is an intrinsic feature of proteins which nature has significantly optimized during evolution. These studies raise questions as to the relative roles of specificity and promiscuity in the biochemical function and control of cells that need investigation.
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.