Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8710875›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America1996

The folding mechanism of larger model proteins: role of native structure.

A R Dinner, A Sali, M Karplus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Coarse-grained (hybrid) integrative modeling of biomolecular interactions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Hydrophobic forces and the length limit of foldable protein domains.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2012
    Article
  6. Protein-folding landscapes in multichain systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2005
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

A R DinnerCommittee on Higher Degrees in Biophysics, Department of Chemistry, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
A Sali
M Karplus

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The folding mechanism of a 125-bead heteropolymer model for proteins is investigated with Monte Carlo simulations on a cubic lattice. Sequences that do and do not fold in a reasonable time are compared. The overall folding behavior is found to be more complex than that of models for smaller proteins. Folding begins with a rapid collapse followed by a slow search through the semi-compact globule for a sequence-dependent stable core with about 30 out of 176 native contacts which serves as the transition state for folding to a near-native structure. Efficient search for the core is dependent on structural features of the native state. Sequences that fold have large amounts of stable, cooperative structure that is accessible through short-range initiation sites, such as those in anti-parallel sheets connected by turns. Before folding is completed, the system can encounter a second bottleneck, involving the condensation and rearrangement of surface residues. Overly stable local structure of the surface residues slows this stage of the folding process. The relation of the results from the 125-mer model studies to the folding of real proteins is discussed.

Indexed as

Protein FoldingModels, TheoreticalMonte Carlo MethodPeptidesProteinsStructure-Activity RelationshipThermodynamicsPeptidesProteins

Identifiers

PMID8710875
PMCPMC38675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.