ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2026
Selection for Folding Stability Predicts Observed Covariation Between Protein Positions in the PDB.
Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statistical couplings between protein sites have been enormously useful for protein structure prediction, but there is still debate on the selective forces that generate them. Here we explicitly predict the couplings considering selection for protein folding stability, both against unfolding and misfolding, which we model through the Stability constrained model of protein evolution (SCPE). The SCPE is based on contact interactions, and it predicts stability against misfolding through the Random Energy Model in the space of contact matrices. We adopt the minimum selection principle, assuming that the multivariate amino acid distribution has minimum Kullback-Leibler divergence with respect to a site-unspecific distribution that is not influenced by protein folding stability. We predict the couplings at first order, assuming that they are small (small coupling approximation, SCA), and obtain an explicit formula that relates them with the contact interaction matrix and with the structural properties of the pairs of sites: presence of native contact, distance along the sequence and buriedness of the sites. We test these predictions on a representative set of the Protein Data Bank. For pairs of sites in contact, both predicted and observed couplings are inversely related with the contact energies of the amino acid pairs, while for pairs not in contact this relation is positive, i.e. negative design destabilizes pairs of amino acids for short-range pairs of sites that can form wrong contacts with high probability. Our results suggest that the strongest couplings correspond to native contacts, but an even larger number of couplings are influenced by negative design. Intriguingly, the most informative pairs are formed by surface sites, suggesting a role for protein-protein interactions and functional motions. We interpret the site-unspecific couplings, which are not influenced by selection for protein folding stability, as the result of variations of global mutational or selective forces across the lineages where the proteins evolve. Consistently, the strongest global couplings are self-couplings between equal amino acids. Cys-Cys, which form disulfide bridges, show the strongest global coupling, followed by pairs of metabolically costly amino acids (Trp-Trp, Tyr-Tyr, Trp-Tyr) and positively charged amino acids that tend to interact with nucleic acids (Lys-Lys, Arg-Arg). Ser, Thr, Asn and Gln form a cluster of globally correlated polar amino acids.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42776216What 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.