ArticleProtein engineering, design & selection : PEDS2017
Collective repacking reveals that the structures of protein cores are uniquely specified by steric repulsive interactions.
Article in Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS, 2017. 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.
- Engineering the kinetic stability of a β-trefoil protein by tuning its topological complexity.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2023Article
- A backbone-dependent rotamer library with high (ϕ, ψ) coverage using metadynamics simulations.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2022Article
- Toggle switch residues control allosteric transitions in bacterial adhesins by participating in a concerted repacking of the protein core.PLoS pathogens · 2021Article
- Using physical features of protein core packing to distinguish real proteins from decoys.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2020Article
- Void distributions reveal structural link between jammed packings and protein cores.Physical review. E · 2019Article
- Comparing side chain packing in soluble proteins, protein-protein interfaces, and transmembrane proteins.Proteins · 2018Article
- Article
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
Abstract
Protein core repacking is a standard test of protein modeling software. A recent study of six different modeling software packages showed that they are more successful at predicting side chain conformations of core compared to surface residues. All the modeling software tested have multicomponent energy functions, typically including contributions from solvation, electrostatics, hydrogen bonding and Lennard-Jones interactions in addition to statistical terms based on observed protein structures. We investigated to what extent a simplified energy function that includes only stereochemical constraints and repulsive hard-sphere interactions can correctly repack protein cores. For single residue and collective repacking, the hard-sphere model accurately recapitulates the observed side chain conformations for Ile, Leu, Phe, Thr, Trp, Tyr and Val. This result shows that there are no alternative, sterically allowed side chain conformations of core residues. Analysis of the same set of protein cores using the Rosetta software suite revealed that the hard-sphere model and Rosetta perform equally well on Ile, Leu, Phe, Thr and Val; the hard-sphere model performs better on Trp and Tyr and Rosetta performs better on Ser. We conclude that the high prediction accuracy in protein cores obtained by protein modeling software and our simplified hard-sphere approach reflects the high density of protein cores and dominance of steric repulsion.
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.