ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2021
Efficient
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computation-guided transcription factor biosensor specificity engineering for adipic acid detection.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- Caspase-Based Fusion Protein Technology: Substrate Cleavability Described by Computational Modeling and Simulation.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
- Rationally Designed Novel Antimicrobial Peptides Targeting Chitin Synthase for Combating Soybean Phytophthora Blight.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Accelerating in silico saturation mutagenesis using compressed sensing.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- RosettaSurf-A surface-centric computational design approach.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- PROFICS: A bacterial selection system for directed evolution of proteases.The Journal of biological chemistry · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rational-design methods have proven to be a valuable toolkit in the field of protein design. Numerical approaches such as free-energy calculations or QM/MM methods are fit to widen the understanding of a protein-sequence space but require large amounts of computational time and power. Here, we apply an efficient method for free-energy calculations that combines the one-step perturbation (OSP) with the third-power-fitting (TPF) approach. It is fit to calculate full free energies of binding from three different end states only. The nonpolar contribution to the free energies are calculated for a set of chosen amino acids from a single simulation of a judiciously chosen reference state. The electrostatic contributions, on the other hand, are predicted from simulations of the neutral and charged end states of the individual amino acids. We used this method to perform
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.