Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29432415›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2018

Same but not alike: Structure, flexibility and energetics of domains in multi-domain proteins are influenced by the presence of other domains.

Sneha Vishwanath, Alexandre G de Brevern, Narayanaswamy Srinivasan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Catalysis and Electron Transfer inChemical reviews · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Decoding LncRNAs.Cancers · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Allosteric cooperation in a de novo-designed two-domain protein.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sneha VishwanathMolecular Biophysics Unit, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.
Alexandre G de BrevernINSERM, U 1134, DSIMB, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7112-5626
Narayanaswamy SrinivasanMolecular Biophysics Unit, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6566-6239
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore · INInserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The majority of the proteins encoded in the genomes of eukaryotes contain more than one domain. Reasons for high prevalence of multi-domain proteins in various organisms have been attributed to higher stability and functional and folding advantages over single-domain proteins. Despite these advantages, many proteins are composed of only one domain while their homologous domains are part of multi-domain proteins. In the study presented here, differences in the properties of protein domains in single-domain and multi-domain systems and their influence on functions are discussed. We studied 20 pairs of identical protein domains, which were crystallized in two forms (a) tethered to other proteins domains and (b) tethered to fewer protein domains than (a) or not tethered to any protein domain. Results suggest that tethering of domains in multi-domain proteins influences the structural, dynamic and energetic properties of the constituent protein domains. 50% of the protein domain pairs show significant structural deviations while 90% of the protein domain pairs show differences in dynamics and 12% of the residues show differences in the energetics. To gain further insights on the influence of tethering on the function of the domains, 4 pairs of homologous protein domains, where one of them is a full-length single-domain protein and the other protein domain is a part of a multi-domain protein, were studied. Analyses showed that identical and structurally equivalent functional residues show differential dynamics in homologous protein domains; though comparable dynamics between in-silico generated chimera protein and multi-domain proteins were observed. From these observations, the differences observed in the functions of homologous proteins could be attributed to the presence of tethered domain. Overall, we conclude that tethered domains in multi-domain proteins not only provide stability or folding advantages but also influence pathways resulting in differences in function or regulatory properties.

Indexed as

Protein DomainsAnimalsComputer SimulationCyclophilinsDNA Polymerase betaFibronectinsHexokinaseHumansModels, MolecularMolecular Dynamics SimulationNeuraminidaseProtein BindingProtein FoldingProtein Interaction MappingProteinsProtein Structure, TertiaryCyclophilinsDNA Polymerase betaFibronectinsHexokinaseHK1 protein, humanNeuraminidaseProteinsProteome

Identifiers

PMID29432415
PMCPMC5825166
OpenAlexW2786092929

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.