Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33139328›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of biological chemistry

Structural comparisons of host and African swine fever virus dUTPases reveal new clues for inhibitor development.

Rui Liang, Gang Wang, Ding Zhang, Gang Ye, Mengxia Li, Yuejun Shi, Jiale Shi, Huanchun Chen, Guiqing Peng

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of biological chemistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rui LiangState Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China; Key Laboratory of Preventive Veterinary Medicine in Hubei Province, The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Gang WangState Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China; Key Laboratory of Preventive Veterinary Medicine in Hubei Province, The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Ding ZhangState Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China; Key Laboratory of Preventive Veterinary Medicine in Hubei Province, The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Gang YeState Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China; Key Laboratory of Preventive Veterinary Medicine in Hubei Province, The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Mengxia LiState Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China; Key Laboratory of Preventive Veterinary Medicine in Hubei Province, The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Yuejun ShiState Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China; Key Laboratory of Preventive Veterinary Medicine in Hubei Province, The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China; College of Life Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Jiale ShiState Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China; Key Laboratory of Preventive Veterinary Medicine in Hubei Province, The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Huanchun ChenState Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China; Key Laboratory of Preventive Veterinary Medicine in Hubei Province, The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Guiqing PengState Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China; Key Laboratory of Preventive Veterinary Medicine in Hubei Province, The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. Electronic address: penggq@mail.hzau.edu.cn.
Huazhong Agricultural University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

African swine fever, caused by the African swine fever virus (ASFV), is among the most significant swine diseases. There are currently no effective treatments against ASFV. ASFV contains a gene encoding a dUTPase (E165R), which is required for viral replication in swine macrophages, making it an attractive target for inhibitor development. However, the full structural details of the ASFV dUTPase and those of the comparable swine enzyme are not available, limiting further insights. Herein, we determine the crystal structures of ASFV dUTPase and swine dUTPase in both their ligand-free and ligand-bound forms. We observe that the swine enzyme employs a classical dUTPase architecture made up of three-subunit active sites, whereas the ASFV enzyme employs a novel two-subunit active site. We then performed a comparative analysis of all dUTPase structures uploaded in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), which showed classical and non-classical types were mainly determined by the C-terminal β-strand orientation, and the difference was mainly related to the four amino acids behind motif IV. Thus, our study not only explains the reason for the structural diversity of dUTPase but also reveals how to predict dUTPase type, which may have implications for the dUTPase family. Finally, we tested two dUTPase inhibitors developed for the Plasmodium falciparum dUTPase against the swine and ASFV enzymes. One of these compounds inhibited the ASFV dUTPase at low micromolar concentrations (K

Indexed as

African Swine Fever VirusAmino Acid SequenceAnimalsAntiviral AgentsCatalytic DomainCrystallography, X-RayDrug DevelopmentEnzyme InhibitorsHost-Pathogen InteractionsMacrophagesPlasmodium falciparumProtein ConformationPyrophosphatasesSwineVirus ReplicationAntiviral AgentsdUTP pyrophosphataseEnzyme InhibitorsPyrophosphatasesASFVdUTPaseinhibitor designswinevariable conformations

Identifiers

PMID33139328
PMCPMC7948977
OpenAlexW3094808777

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.