ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2024
Assessing the functional roles of coevolving PHD finger residues.
Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing the functional roles of coevolving PHD finger residues.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although in silico folding based on coevolving residue constraints in the deep-learning era has transformed protein structure prediction, the contributions of coevolving residues to protein folding, stability, and other functions in physical contexts remain to be clarified and experimentally validated. Herein, the PHD finger module, a well-known histone reader with distinct subtypes containing subtype-specific coevolving residues, was used as a model to experimentally assess the contributions of coevolving residues and to clarify their specific roles. The results of the assessment, including proteolysis and thermal unfolding of wildtype and mutant proteins, suggested that coevolving residues have varying contributions, despite their large in silico constraints. Residue positions with large constraints were found to contribute to stability in one subtype but not others. Computational sequence design and generative model-based energy estimates of individual structures were also implemented to complement the experimental assessment. Sequence design and energy estimates distinguish coevolving residues that contribute to folding from those that do not. The results of proteolytic analysis of mutations at positions contributing to folding were consistent with those suggested by sequence design and energy estimation. Thus, we report a comprehensive assessment of the contributions of coevolving residues, as well as a strategy based on a combination of approaches that should enable detailed understanding of the residue contributions in other large protein families.
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.