Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29785722›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular recognition : JMR2018

Electrostatic recognition in substrate binding to serine proteases.

Birgit J Waldner, Johannes Kraml, Ursula Kahler, Alexander Spinn, Michael Schauperl, Maren Podewitz, Julian E Fuchs, Gabriele Cruciani, Klaus R Liedl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular recognition : JMR, 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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Electrostatic recognition in substrate binding to serine proteases.Journal of molecular recognition : JMR · 2018
    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

9 authors.

Birgit J WaldnerInstitute of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Johannes KramlInstitute of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Ursula KahlerInstitute of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Alexander SpinnInstitute of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Michael SchauperlInstitute of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Maren PodewitzInstitute of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Julian E FuchsInstitute of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Gabriele CrucianiLaboratory of Chemometrics, Department of Chemistry, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
Klaus R LiedlInstitute of General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0985-2299

Funding

Austrian Academy of Sciences DOC Grant to BJWAustrian Science Fund (FWF) P30565
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Serine proteases of the Chymotrypsin family are structurally very similar but have very different substrate preferences. This study investigates a set of 9 different proteases of this family comprising proteases that prefer substrates containing positively charged amino acids, negatively charged amino acids, and uncharged amino acids with varying degree of specificity. Here, we show that differences in electrostatic substrate preferences can be predicted reliably by electrostatic molecular interaction fields employing customized GRID probes. Thus, we are able to directly link protease structures to their electrostatic substrate preferences. Additionally, we present a new metric that measures similarities in substrate preferences focusing only on electrostatics. It efficiently compares these electrostatic substrate preferences between different proteases. This new metric can be interpreted as the electrostatic part of our previously developed substrate similarity metric. Consequently, we suggest, that substrate recognition in terms of electrostatics and shape complementarity are rather orthogonal aspects of substrate recognition. This is in line with a 2-step mechanism of protein-protein recognition suggested in the literature.

Indexed as

Binding SitesProtein BindingSerine ProteasesStatic ElectricitySubstrate SpecificitySerine Proteaseselectrostatic similarityencounter complexmolecular interaction fieldsproteasesubstratesubstrate recognition

Identifiers

PMID29785722
PMCPMC6175425

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.