Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27636092›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2016

How to Distinguish Conformational Selection and Induced Fit Based on Chemical Relaxation Rates.

Fabian Paul, Thomas R Weikl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Allosteric Mechanism of G-Protein-Coupled Receptors is Induced Fit, Not Conformational Selection.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Dynamics and Interplay of the Binding Pockets in the Glycine Receptor.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Ligand-induced protein transition state stabilization switches the binding pathway from conformational selection to induced fit.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Fabian PaulMax Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Department of Theory and Bio-Systems, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1478-1827
Thomas R WeiklMax Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Department of Theory and Bio-Systems, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0911-5328

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein binding often involves conformational changes. Important questions are whether a conformational change occurs prior to a binding event ('conformational selection') or after a binding event ('induced fit'), and how conformational transition rates can be obtained from experiments. In this article, we present general results for the chemical relaxation rates of conformational-selection and induced-fit binding processes that hold for all concentrations of proteins and ligands and, thus, go beyond the standard pseudo-first-order approximation of large ligand concentration. These results allow to distinguish conformational-selection from induced-fit processes-also in cases in which such a distinction is not possible under pseudo-first-order conditions-and to extract conformational transition rates of proteins from chemical relaxation data.

Indexed as

Models, MolecularProtein BindingProtein ConformationComputational BiologyProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID27636092
PMCPMC5026370

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.