ArticleNature communications2025
Proteome-wide determinants of co-translational chaperone binding in bacteria.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quasi-continuous cotranslational compaction and folding of a multidomain protein.Nature communications · 2026Article
- FoldDelay web server: an online tool to quantify translation-driven delays in protein native contact formation.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Structures of protein folding intermediates on the ribosome.Nature structural & molecular biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Multivalent weak contacts shape chaperone-nascent protein interactions.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Chaperone dependency during biogenesis does not correlate with chaperone dependency during refolding.Molecular systems biology · 2026Article
- mRNA Cancer Vaccines: From Pandemic Paradigm to Personalized Oncology Therapeutics.Cancer innovation · 2025Review
- GroEL/ES chaperonin unfolds then encapsulates a nascent protein on the ribosome.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Chaperone Dependency during Primary Protein Biogenesis Does Not Correlate with Chaperone Dependency duringbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chaperones are essential to the co-translational folding of most proteins. However, the principles of co-translational chaperone interaction throughout the proteome are poorly understood, as current methods are restricted to few substrates and cannot capture nascent protein folding or chaperone binding sites, precluding a comprehensive understanding of productive and erroneous protein biosynthesis. Here, by integrating genome-wide selective ribosome profiling, single-molecule tools, and computational predictions using AlphaFold we show that the binding of the main E. coli chaperones involved in co-translational folding, Trigger Factor (TF) and DnaK correlates with "unsatisfied residues" exposed on nascent partial folds - residues that have begun to form tertiary structure but cannot yet form all native contacts due to ongoing translation. This general principle allows us to predict their co-translational binding across the proteome based on sequence only, which we verify experimentally. The results show that TF and DnaK stably bind partially folded rather than unfolded conformers. They also indicate a synergistic action of TF guiding intra-domain folding and DnaK preventing premature inter-domain contacts, and reveal robustness in the larger chaperone network (TF, DnaK, GroEL). Given the complexity of translation, folding, and chaperone functions, our predictions based on general chaperone binding rules indicate an unexpected underlying simplicity.
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.