ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
Exploring E-cadherin-peptidomimetics interaction using NMR and computational studies.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamics and functions of E-cadherin complexes in epithelial cell and tissue morphogenesis.Marine life science & technology · 2023Review
- A combined fragment-based virtual screening and STD-NMR approach for the identification of E-cadherin ligands.Frontiers in chemistry · 2022Article
- Structure-Based Virtual Screening Allows the Identification of Efficient Modulators of E-Cadherin-Mediated Cell-Cell Adhesion.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cadherins are homophilic cell-cell adhesion molecules whose aberrant expression has often been shown to correlate with different stages of tumor progression. In this work, we investigate the interaction of two peptidomimetic ligands with the extracellular portion of human E-cadherin using a combination of NMR and computational techniques. Both ligands have been previously developed as mimics of the tetrapeptide sequence Asp1-Trp2-Val3-Ile4 of the cadherin adhesion arm, and have been shown to inhibit E-cadherin-mediated adhesion in epithelial ovarian cancer cells with millimolar potency. To sample a set of possible interactions of these ligands with the E-cadherin extracellular portion, STD-NMR experiments in the presence of two slightly different constructs, the wild type E-cadherin-EC1-EC2 fragment and the truncated E-cadherin-(Val3)-EC1-EC2 fragment, were carried out at three temperatures. Depending on the protein construct, a different binding epitope of the ligand and also a different temperature effect on STD signals were observed, both suggesting an involvement of the Asp1-Trp2 protein sequence among all the possible binding events. To interpret the experimental results at the atomic level and to probe the role of the cadherin adhesion arm in the dynamic interaction with the peptidomimetic ligand, a computational protocol based on docking calculations and molecular dynamics simulations was applied. In agreement with NMR data, the simulations at different temperatures unveil high variability/dynamism in ligand-cadherin binding, thus explaining the differences in ligand binding epitopes. In particular, the modulation of the signals seems to be dependent on the protein flexibility, especially at the level of the adhesive arm, which appears to participate in the interaction with the ligand. Overall, these results will help the design of novel cadherin inhibitors that might prevent the swap dimer formation by targeting both the Trp2 binding pocket and the adhesive arm residues.
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.