The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computational alanine scanning mutagenesis—An improved methodological approach
Abstract
Alanine scanning mutagenesis of protein–protein interfacial residues can be applied to a wide variety of protein complexes to understand the structural and energetic characteristics of the hot‐spots. Binding free energies have been estimated with reasonable accuracy with empirical methods, such as Molecular Mechanics/Poisson‐Boltzmann surface area (MM‐PBSA), and with more rigorous computational approaches like Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) and Thermodynamic Integration (TI). The main objective of this work is the development of an improved methodological approach, with less computational cost, that predicts accurately differences in binding free energies between the wild‐type and alanine mutated complexes (ΔΔ Gbinding). The method was applied to three complexes, and a mean unsigned error of 0.80 kcal/mol was obtained in a set of 46 mutations. The computational method presented here achieved an overall success rate of 80% and an 82% success rate in residues for which alanine mutation causes an increase in the binding free energy > 2.0 kcal/mol (warm‐ and hot‐spots). This fully atomistic computational methodological approach consists in a computational Molecular Dynamics simulation protocol performed in a continuum medium using the Generalized Born model. A set of three different internal dielectric constants, to mimic the different degree of relaxation of the interface when different types of amino acids are mutated for alanine, have to be used for the proteins, depending on the type of amino acid that is mutated. This method permits a systematic scanning mutagenesis of protein–protein interfaces and it is capable of anticipating the experimental results of mutagenesis, thus guiding new experimental investigations. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 28: 644–654, 2007
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ryckaert, J.-P., Ciccotti, G., & Berendsen, H. J. C. (1977) · Journal of Computational Physics · doi:10.1016/0021-9991(77)90098-5 · Cited by 21,239
A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules
Cornell, W. D., Cieplak, P., Bayly, C. I., Gould, I. R., Merz, K. M., Ferguson, D. M., Spellmeyer, D. C., Fox, T., Caldwell, J. W., & Kollman, P. A. (1995) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja00124a002 · Cited by 13,103
The Amber biomolecular simulation programs
Case, D. A., Cheatham, T. E., Darden, T., Gohlke, H., Luo, R., Merz, K. M., Onufriev, A., Simmerling, C., Wang, B., & Woods, R. J. (2005) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.20290 · Cited by 9,535
Kollman, P. A., Massova, I., Reyes, C., Kuhn, B., Huo, S., Chong, L., Lee, M., Lee, T., Duan, Y., Wang, W., et al. (2000) · Accounts of Chemical Research · doi:10.1021/ar000033j · Cited by 4,978
Analytical molecular surface calculation
Connolly, M. L. (1983) · Journal of Applied Crystallography · doi:10.1107/s0021889883010985 · Cited by 2,508
Accurate Calculation of Hydration Free Energies Using Macroscopic Solvent Models
Sitkoff, D., Sharp, K. A., & Honig, B. (1994) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/j100058a043 · Cited by 2,131
Anatomy of hot spots in protein interfaces
Bogan, A. A., & Thorn, K. S. (1998) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1998.1843 · Cited by 1,988
A Hot Spot of Binding Energy in a Hormone-Receptor Interface
Clackson, T., & Wells, J. A. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7529940 · Cited by 1,983
The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites 1 1Edited by A. R. Fersht
Conte, L. L., Chothia, C., & Janin, J. (1999) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1998.2439 · Cited by 1,964
Guerois, R., Nielsen, J. E., & Serrano, L. (2002) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-2836(02)00442-4 · Cited by 1,728
Cited by
BeAtMuSiC: prediction of changes in protein–protein binding affinity on mutations
Dehouck, Y., Kwasigroch, J. M., Rooman, M., & Gilis, D. (2013) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt450 · Cited by 338
Lise, S., Archambeau, C., Pontil, M., & Jones, D. T. (2009) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-365 · Cited by 107
“One class of methods is based on molecular dynamics (MD) simulations [9,10], which makes them computationally rather expensive and difficult to apply on a large scale.”
BackgroundComputational Alanine Scanning Mutagenesis: MM-PBSA vs TI
Martins, S. A., Perez, M. A. S., Moreira, I. S., Sousa, S. F., Ramos, M. J., & Fernandes, P. A. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/ct4000372 · Cited by 72
Self-citationUnderstanding the specificity of a docking interaction between JNK1 and the scaffolding protein JIP1
Yan, C., Kaoud, T., Lee, S., Dalby, K. N., & Ren, P. (2011) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp1073522 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Moreira, I. S., Fernandes, P. A., & Ramos, M. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Computational Chemistry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-12-28
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 644-654
- ISSN
- 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-987X
- OpenAlex
- W2098888753
- Cited by
- 273
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 3.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Computational alanine scanning mutagenesis—An improved methodological approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jcc.20566
- The paper
- Moreira, I. S., Fernandes, P. A., & Ramos, M. J. (2007). Computational alanine scanning mutagenesis—An improved methodological approach. Journal of Computational Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20566
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.