Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38396678›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2024

Mesophiles vs. Thermophiles: Untangling the Hot Mess of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins and Growth Temperature of Bacteria.

Alibek Kruglikov, Xuhua Xia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

Alibek KruglikovDepartment of Biology, University of Ottawa, 30 Marie Curie, Station A, P.O. Box 450, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6074-8764
Xuhua XiaDepartment of Biology, University of Ottawa, 30 Marie Curie, Station A, P.O. Box 450, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3092-7566

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant RGPIN/2018-03878
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The dynamic structures and varying functions of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) have made them fascinating subjects in molecular biology. Investigating IDP abundance in different bacterial species is crucial for understanding adaptive strategies in diverse environments. Notably, thermophilic bacteria have lower IDP abundance than mesophiles, and a negative correlation with optimal growth temperature (OGT) has been observed. However, the factors driving these trends are yet to be fully understood. We examined the types of IDPs present in both mesophiles and thermophiles alongside those unique to just mesophiles. The shared group of IDPs exhibits similar disorder levels in the two groups of species, suggesting that certain IDPs unique to mesophiles may contribute to the observed decrease in IDP abundance as OGT increases. Subsequently, we used quasi-independent contrasts to explore the relationship between OGT and IDP abundance evolution. Interestingly, we found no significant relationship between OGT and IDP abundance contrasts, suggesting that the evolution of lower IDP abundance in thermophiles may not be solely linked to OGT. This study provides a foundation for future research into the intricate relationship between IDP evolution and environmental adaptation. Our findings support further research on the adaptive significance of intrinsic disorder in bacterial species.

Indexed as

Intrinsically Disordered ProteinsBacteriaHumansProtein ConformationTemperatureIntrinsically Disordered Proteinsintrinsically disordered proteinsprotein structurethermophilic bacteria

Identifiers

PMID38396678
PMCPMC10889376

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.