ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2016
A Split-Ubiquitin Based Strategy Selecting for Protein Complex-Interfering Mutations.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Protein interaction perturbation profiling at amino-acid resolution.Nature methods · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the topologies and functions of protein interaction networks requires the selective removal of single interactions. We introduce a selection strategy that enriches among a random library of alleles for mutations that impair the binding to a given partner protein. The selection makes use of a split-ubiquitin based protein interaction assay. This assay provides yeast cells that carry protein complex disturbing mutations with the advantage of being able to survive on uracil-lacking media. Applied to the exemplary interaction between the PB domains of the yeast proteins Bem1 and Cdc24, we performed two independent selections. The selections were either analyzed by Sanger sequencing of isolated clones or by next generation sequencing (NGS) of pools of clones. Both screens enriched for the same mutation in position 833 of Cdc24. Biochemical analysis confirmed that this mutation disturbs the interaction with Bem1 but not the fold of the protein. The larger dataset obtained by NGS achieved a more complete representation of the bipartite interaction interface of Cdc24.
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.