Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31328041›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

Evolutionary couplings detect side-chain interactions.

Adam J Hockenberry, Claus O Wilke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A crucial active site network of titratable residues guides catalysis and NADProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025
    Article
  2. Modular Structure and Polymerization Status of GABAInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Adam J HockenberryDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9476-0104
Claus O WilkeDepartment of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7470-9261
The University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

The biophysical basis of translational selectionR01GM088344 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI BARRICK, JEFFREY EVAN, WILKE, CLAUS O · 2009 to 2023
$3.5M
Identifying Mutations that Promote Microbial EvolvabilityK99GM087550 · NIGMS · MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BARRICK, JEFFREY EVAN · 2009 to 2010
$180k
NIGMS NIH HHS K99 GM087550NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM088344
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patterns of amino acid covariation in large protein sequence alignments can inform the prediction of de novo protein structures, binding interfaces, and mutational effects. While algorithms that detect these so-called evolutionary couplings between residues have proven useful for practical applications, less is known about how and why these methods perform so well, and what insights into biological processes can be gained from their application. Evolutionary coupling algorithms are commonly benchmarked by comparison to true structural contacts derived from solved protein structures. However, the methods used to determine true structural contacts are not standardized and different definitions of structural contacts may have important consequences for interpreting the results from evolutionary coupling analyses and understanding their overall utility. Here, we show that evolutionary coupling analyses are significantly more likely to identify structural contacts between side-chain atoms than between backbone atoms. We use both simulations and empirical analyses to highlight that purely backbone-based definitions of true residue-residue contacts (i.e., based on the distance between Cα atoms) may underestimate the accuracy of evolutionary coupling algorithms by as much as 40% and that a commonly used reference point (Cβ atoms) underestimates the accuracy by 10-15%. These findings show that co-evolutionary outcomes differ according to which atoms participate in residue-residue interactions and suggest that accounting for different interaction types may lead to further improvements to contact-prediction methods.

Indexed as

Contact predictionEpistasisEvolutionary couplingsProtein evolutionStructural constraints

Identifiers

PMID31328041
PMCPMC6622159
OpenAlexW2953622504

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.