ArticleBMC bioinformatics2020
An automated protocol for modelling peptide substrates to proteases.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The CABANA model 2017-2022: research and training synergy to facilitate bioinformatics applications in Latin America.Frontiers in education · 2024Article
- In-vitro and in-silico analyses of the thrombolytic potential of green kiwifruit.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Embracing enzyme promiscuity with activity-based compressed biosensing.Cell reports methods · 2023Article
- Protocol for iterative optimization of modified peptides bound to protein targets.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2022Article
- PepFun: Open Source Protocols for Peptide-Related Computational Analysis.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProteases are key drivers in many biological processes, in part due to their specificity towards their substrates. However, depending on the family and molecular function, they can also display substrate promiscuity which can also be essential. Databases compiling specificity matrices derived from experimental assays have provided valuable insights into protease substrate recognition. Despite this, there are still gaps in our knowledge of the structural determinants. Here, we compile a set of protease crystal structures with bound peptide-like ligands to create a protocol for modelling substrates bound to protease structures, and for studying observables associated to the binding recognition.
resultsAs an application, we modelled a subset of protease-peptide complexes for which experimental cleavage data are available to compare with informational entropies obtained from protease-specificity matrices. The modelled complexes were subjected to conformational sampling using the Backrub method in Rosetta, and multiple observables from the simulations were calculated and compared per peptide position. We found that some of the calculated structural observables, such as the relative accessible surface area and the interaction energy, can help characterize a protease's substrate recognition, giving insights for the potential prediction of novel substrates by combining additional approaches.
conclusionOverall, our approach provides a repository of protease structures with annotated data, and an open source computational protocol to reproduce the modelling and dynamic analysis of the protease-peptide complexes.
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.