Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33938055›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2021

Protein folding - seeing is deceiving.

George D Rose

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The master molecule that built biology: How water shaped the chemistry of life.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Protein folding - seeing is deceiving.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Local sequence-structure relationships in proteins.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2021
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

George D RoseT.C. Jenkins Department of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9185-2123
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This Perspective is intended to raise questions about the conventional interpretation of protein folding. According to the conventional interpretation, developed over many decades, a protein population can visit a vast number of conformations under unfolding conditions, but a single dominant native population emerges under folding conditions. Accordingly, folding comes with a substantial loss of conformational entropy. How is this price paid? The conventional answer is that favorable interactions between and among the side chains can compensate for entropy loss, and moreover, these interactions are responsible for the structural particulars of the native conformation. Challenging this interpretation, the Perspective introduces a proposal that high energy (i.e., unfavorable) excluding interactions winnow the accessible population substantially under physical-chemical conditions that favor folding. Both steric clash and unsatisfied hydrogen bond donors and acceptors are classified as excluding interactions, so called because conformers with such disfavored interactions will be largely excluded from the thermodynamic population. Both excluding interactions and solvent factors that induce compactness are somewhat nonspecific, yet together they promote substantial chain organization. Moreover, proteins are built on a backbone scaffold consisting of α-helices and strands of β-sheet, where the number of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors is exactly balanced. These repetitive secondary structural elements are the only two conformers that can be both completely hydrogen-bond satisfied and extended indefinitely without encountering a steric clash. Consequently, the number of fundamental folds is limited to no more than ~10,000 for a protein domain. Once excluding interactions are taken into account, the issue of "frustration" is largely eliminated and the Levinthal paradox is resolved. Putting the "bottom line" at the top: it is likely that hydrogen-bond satisfaction represents a largely under-appreciated parameter in protein folding models.

Indexed as

Protein ConformationProtein FoldingProteinsEntropyHydrogen BondingModels, MolecularThermodynamicsProteinsbackbone-based modelconformational entropyexcluding interactionshydrogen-bond satisfactionLevinthal paradoxprotein foldingsteric clash

Identifiers

PMID33938055
PMCPMC8284583
OpenAlexW3159842754

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.