Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38740745›Full record

ArticleNature communications2024

LoCoHD: a metric for comparing local environments of proteins.

Zsolt Fazekas, Dóra K Menyhárd, András Perczel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Zsolt FazekasLaboratory of Structural Chemistry and Biology, Institute of Chemistry, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5007-4807
Dóra K MenyhárdLaboratory of Structural Chemistry and Biology, Institute of Chemistry, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0095-5531
András PerczelLaboratory of Structural Chemistry and Biology, Institute of Chemistry, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary. perczel.andras@ttk.elte.hu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1252-6416

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein folds and the local environments they create can be compared using a variety of differently designed measures, such as the root mean squared deviation, the global distance test, the template modeling score or the local distance difference test. Although these measures have proven to be useful for a variety of tasks, each fails to fully incorporate the valuable chemical information inherent to atoms and residues, and considers these only partially and indirectly. Here, we develop the highly flexible local composition Hellinger distance (LoCoHD) metric, which is based on the chemical composition of local residue environments. Using LoCoHD, we analyze the chemical heterogeneity of amino acid environments and identify valines having the most conserved-, and arginines having the most variable chemical environments. We use LoCoHD to investigate structural ensembles, to evaluate critical assessment of structure prediction (CASP) competitors, to compare the results with the local distance difference test (lDDT) scoring system, and to evaluate a molecular dynamics simulation. We show that LoCoHD measurements provide unique information about protein structures that is distinct from, for example, those derived using the alignment-based RMSD metric, or the similarly distance matrix-based but alignment-free lDDT metric.

Indexed as

Molecular Dynamics SimulationProteinsAlgorithmsAmino AcidsComputational BiologyProtein ConformationProtein FoldingAmino AcidsProteins

Identifiers

PMID38740745
PMCPMC11091161

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.