Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30946594›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2019

Utility of Covalent Labeling Mass Spectrometry Data in Protein Structure Prediction with Rosetta.

Melanie L Aprahamian, Steffen Lindert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Protein Structure Prediction with Mass Spectrometry Data.Annual review of physical chemistry · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Crosslinking mass spectrometry: A link between structural biology and systems biology.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Melanie L AprahamianDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry , Ohio State University , Columbus , Ohio 43210 , United States.
Steffen LindertDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry , Ohio State University , Columbus , Ohio 43210 , United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3976-3473

Funding

Molecular models to characterize actions of calcium sensitizing drugsR01HL137015 · NHLBI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LINDERT, STEFFEN · 2018 to 2022
$1.8M
Rational Drug Design for Chronic Neuronal DamageR03AG054904 · NIA · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LINDERT, STEFFEN · 2017 to 2018
$155k
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL137015NIA NIH HHS R03 AG054904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Covalent labeling mass spectrometry experiments are growing in popularity and provide important information regarding protein structure. Information obtained from these experiments correlates with residue solvent exposure within the protein in solution. However, it is impossible to determine protein structure from covalent labeling data alone. Incorporation of sparse covalent labeling data into the protein structure prediction software Rosetta has been shown to improve protein tertiary structure prediction. Here, covalent labeling techniques were analyzed computationally to provide insight into what labeling data is needed to optimize tertiary protein structure prediction in Rosetta. We have successfully implemented a new scoring functionality that provides improved predictions. We developed two new covalent labeling based score terms that use a "cone"-based neighbor count to quantify the relative solvent exposure of each amino acid. To test our method, we used a set of 20 proteins with structures deposited in the Protein Data Bank. Decoy model sets were generated for each of these 20 proteins, and the normalized covalent labeling score versus RMSD distributions were evaluated. On the basis of these distributions, we have determined an optimal subset of residues to use when performing covalent labeling experiments in order to maximize the structure prediction capabilities of the covalent labeling data. We also investigated how much false negative and false positive data can be tolerated without meaningfully impacting protein structure prediction. Using these new covalent labeling score terms, protein models were rescored and the resulting models improved by 3.9 Å RMSD on average. New models were also generated using Rosetta's AbinitioRelax program under the guidance of covalent labeling information, and improvement in model quality was observed.

Indexed as

Databases, ProteinMass SpectrometryModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProteinsSolventsProteinsSolvents

Identifiers

PMID30946594
PMCPMC6520167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.