Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29547629›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2018

The exclusive effects of chaperonin on the behavior of proteins with 52 knot.

Yani Zhao, Pawel Dabrowski-Tumanski, Szymon Niewieczerzal, Joanna I Sulkowska

Abstract 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Is There a Functional Role for the Knotted Topology in Protein UCH-L1?Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Nascent Folding of Proteins Across the Three Domains of Life.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Topological descriptions of protein folding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

4 authors.

Yani ZhaoCentre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-1430-4518
Pawel Dabrowski-TumanskiCentre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Szymon NiewieczerzalCentre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-7563-7212
Joanna I SulkowskaCentre of New Technologies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2452-0724

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The folding of proteins with a complex knot is still an unresolved question. Based on representative members of Ubiquitin C-terminal Hydrolases (UCHs) that contain the 52 knot in the native state, we explain how UCHs are able to unfold and refold in vitro reversibly within the structure-based model. In particular, we identify two, topologically different folding/unfolding pathways and corroborate our results with experiment, recreating the chevron plot. We show that confinement effect of chaperonin or weak crowding greatly facilitates folding, simultaneously slowing down the unfolding process of UCHs, compared with bulk conditions. Finally, we analyze the existence of knots in the denaturated state of UCHs. The results of the work show that the crowded environment of the cell should have a positive effect on the kinetics of complex knotted proteins, especially when proteins with deeper knots are found in this family.

Indexed as

Protein ConformationProtein FoldingChaperoninsComputational BiologyProtein DenaturationProteinsUbiquitin ThiolesteraseChaperoninsProteinsUbiquitin Thiolesterase

Identifiers

PMID29547629
PMCPMC5874080

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.