Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27924263›Full record

ArticleBiophysics and physicobiology2016

Determination of locked interfaces in biomolecular complexes using Haptimol_RD.

Georgios Iakovou, Stephen Laycock, Steven Hayward

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysics and physicobiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Preface of Special Issue "Protein-Ligand Interactions".Biophysics and physicobiology · 2016
    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

3 authors.

Georgios IakovouSchool of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Stephen LaycockSchool of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Steven HaywardSchool of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interactive haptics-assisted docking provides a virtual environment for the study of molecular complex formation. It enables the user to interact with the virtual molecules, experience the interaction forces via their sense of touch, and gain insights about the docking process itself. Here we use a recently developed haptics software tool, Haptimol_RD, for the rigid docking of protein subunits to form complexes. Dimers, both homo and hetero, are loaded into the software with their subunits separated in space for the purpose of assessing whether they can be brought back into the correct docking pose via rigid-body movements. Four dimers were classified into two types: two with an interwinding subunit interface and two with a non-interwinding subunit interface. It was found that the two with an interwinding interface could not be docked whereas the two with the non-interwinding interface could be. For the two that could be docked a "sucking" effect could be felt on the haptic device when the correct binding pose was approached which is associated with a minimum in the interaction energy. It is clear that for those that could not be docked, the conformation of one or both of the subunits must change upon docking. This leads to the steric-based concept of a locked or non-locked interface. Non-locked interfaces have shapes that allow the subunits to come together or come apart without the necessity of intra-subunit conformational change, whereas locked interfaces require a conformational change within one or both subunits for them to be able to come apart.

Indexed as

force feedbackhaptic feedbackinterwinding interfaceprotein dockingprotein-protein interactions

Identifiers

PMID27924263
PMCPMC5042165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.