ArticlePeerJ2022
An
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- ING Proteins and Neural Development in Newborns from Alcohol- and/or Drug-Abusing Pregnant Women.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Inhibitor of Growth Proteins: Epigenetic Regulators Shaping Neurobiology.Biomolecules · 2025Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.