Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36199288›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2022

An

Nadir Gül, Ahmet Yıldız

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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.

Nadir GülFaculty of Natural Sciences, Turkish-German University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ahmet YıldızFaculty of Engineering, Turkish-German University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Türkisch-Deutsche Universität · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Due to its intrinsically disordered nature, the histone tail is conformationally heterogenic. Therefore, it provides specific binding sites for different binding proteins or factors through reversible post-translational modifications (PTMs). For instance, experimental studies stated that the ING family binds with the histone tail that has methylation on the lysine in position 4. However, numerous complexes featuring a methylated fourth lysine residue of the histone tail can be found in the UniProt database. So the question arose if other factors like the conformation of the histone tail affect the binding affinity. Methods: The crystal structure of the PHD finger domain from the proteins ING1, ING2, ING4, and ING5 are docked to four histone H3 tails with two different conformations using Haddock 2.4 and ClusPro. The best four models for each combination are selected and a two-sample t-test is performed to compare the binding affinities of helical conformations vs. linear conformations using Prodigy. The protein-protein interactions are examined using LigPlot. Results: The linear histone conformations in predicted INGs-histone H3 complexes exhibit statistically significant higher binding affinity than their helical counterparts (confidence level of 99%). The outputs of predicted models generated by the molecular docking programs Haddock 2.4 and ClusPro are comparable, and the obtained protein-protein interaction patterns are consistent with experimentally confirmed binding patterns. Conclusion: The results show that the conformation of the histone tail is significantly affecting the binding affinity of the docking protein. Herewith, this

Indexed as

HistonesLysineBinding SitesMolecular Docking SimulationProtein BindingHistonesLysineBinding affinityEpigeneticsHistone TailING ProteinIn silicoIntrinsically Disordered ProteinsMolecular docking

Identifiers

PMID36199288
PMCPMC9528904
OpenAlexW4298144082

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.