Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33188001›Full record

ReviewApplied and environmental microbiology2021

Virus Isoelectric Point Estimation: Theories and Methods.

Joe Heffron, Brooke K Mayer

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Influence of Ionic Surfactants on Microfiltration of Enveloped and Nonenveloped Viruses.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Mechanisms, Techniques and Devices of Airborne Virus Detection: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joe HeffronDepartment of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA joseph.heffron@marquette.edu brooke.mayer@marquette.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5110-9271
Brooke K MayerDepartment of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA joseph.heffron@marquette.edu brooke.mayer@marquette.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4858-2834
Marquette University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much of virus fate, both in the environment and in physical/chemical treatment, is dependent on electrostatic interactions. Developing an accurate means of predicting virion isoelectric point (pI) would help to understand and anticipate virus fate and transport, especially for viruses that are not readily propagated in the lab. One simple approach to predicting pI estimates the pH at which the sum of charges from ionizable amino acids in capsid proteins approaches zero. However, predicted pIs based on capsid charges frequently deviate by several pH units from empirically measured pIs. Recently, the discrepancy between empirical and predicted pI was attributed to the electrostatic neutralization of predictable polynucleotide-binding regions (PBRs) of the capsid interior. In this paper, we review models presupposing (i) the influence of the viral polynucleotide on surface charge or (ii) the contribution of only exterior residues to surface charge. We then compare these models to the approach of excluding only PBRs and hypothesize a conceptual electrostatic model that aligns with this approach. The PBR exclusion method outperformed methods based on three-dimensional (3D) structure and accounted for major discrepancies in predicted pIs without adversely affecting pI prediction for a diverse range of viruses. In addition, the PBR exclusion method was determined to be the best available method for predicting virus pI, since (i) PBRs are predicted independently of the impact on pI, (ii) PBR prediction relies on proteome sequences rather than detailed structural models, and (iii) PBR exclusion was successfully demonstrated on a diverse set of viruses. These models apply to nonenveloped viruses only. A similar model for enveloped viruses is complicated by a lack of data on enveloped virus pI, as well as uncertainties regarding the influence of the phospholipid envelope on charge and ion gradients.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPolynucleotidesVirusesIsoelectric PointStatic ElectricityPolynucleotidescapsidcolloidDNA bindingDNA-binding proteinselectrostaticmodelingpolynucleotidepredictionpredictive modelRNA bindingRNA-binding proteinssurface chargevirionvirion structure

Identifiers

PMID33188001
PMCPMC7848896
OpenAlexW3106400806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.