ArticleBiophysics and physicobiology2016
Specificity of broad protein interaction surfaces for proteins with multiple binding partners.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biochemical Reduction of the Topology of the Diverse WDR76 Protein Interactome.Journal of proteome research · 2019Article
- Systematic identification of recognition motifs for the hub protein LC8.Life science alliance · 2019Article
- Conservation of Specificity in Two Low-Specificity Proteins.Biochemistry · 2018Article
- Preface of Special Issue "Protein-Ligand Interactions".Biophysics and physicobiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Analysis of protein-protein interaction networks has revealed the presence of proteins with multiple interaction ligand proteins, such as hub proteins. For such proteins, multiple ligands would be predicted as interacting partners when predicting all-to-all protein-protein interactions (PPIs). In this work, to obtain a better understanding of PPI mechanisms, we focused on protein interaction surfaces, which differ between protein pairs. We then performed rigid-body docking to obtain information of interfaces of a set of decoy structures, which include many possible interaction surfaces between a certain protein pair. Then, we investigated the specificity of sets of decoy interactions between true binding partners in each case of alpha-chymotrypsin, actin, and cyclin-dependent kinase 2 as test proteins having multiple true binding partners. To observe differences in interaction surfaces of docking decoys, we introduced broad interaction profiles (BIPs), generated by assembling interaction profiles of decoys for each protein pair. After cluster analysis, the specificity of BIPs of true binding partners was observed for each receptor. We used two types of BIPs: those involved in amino acid sequences (BIP-seqs) and those involved in the compositions of interacting amino acid residue pairs (BIP-AAs). The specificity of a BIP was defined as the number of group members including all true binding partners. We found that BIP-AA cases were more specific than BIP-seq cases. These results indicated that the composition of interacting amino acid residue pairs was sufficient for determining the properties of protein interaction surfaces.
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.