ArticlePLoS computational biology2021
Prediction of amphipathic helix-membrane interactions with Rosetta.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. 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.
- Assembly of Protein Complexes in and on the Membrane with Predicted Spatial Arrangement Constraints.Journal of molecular biology · 2024Article
- Modeling membrane geometries implicitly in Rosetta.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024Article
- Assembly of Protein Complexes In and On the Membrane with Predicted Spatial Arrangement Constraints.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Mitochondrial DNA variation in Alzheimer's disease reveals a unique microprotein called SHMOOSE.Molecular psychiatry · 2023Article
- Computational structure prediction provides a plausible mechanism for electron transfer by the outer membrane protein Cyc2 from Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Amphipathic helices have hydrophobic and hydrophilic/charged residues situated on opposite faces of the helix. They can anchor peripheral membrane proteins to the membrane, be attached to integral membrane proteins, or exist as independent peptides. Despite the widespread presence of membrane-interacting amphipathic helices, there is no computational tool within Rosetta to model their interactions with membranes. In order to address this need, we developed the AmphiScan protocol with PyRosetta, which runs a grid search to find the most favorable position of an amphipathic helix with respect to the membrane. The performance of the algorithm was tested in benchmarks with the RosettaMembrane, ref2015_memb, and franklin2019 score functions on six engineered and 44 naturally-occurring amphipathic helices using membrane coordinates from the OPM and PDBTM databases, OREMPRO server, and MD simulations for comparison. The AmphiScan protocol predicted the coordinates of amphipathic helices within less than 3Å of the reference structures and identified membrane-embedded residues with a Matthews Correlation Constant (MCC) of up to 0.57. Overall, AmphiScan stands as fast, accurate, and highly-customizable protocol that can be pipelined with other Rosetta and Python applications.
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.