Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of successful and failed protein interface designs highlights the challenges of designing buried hydrogen bonds

Open access
Stranges, P. Benjamin, Kuhlman, Brian·2013·Protein Science

Abstract

The accurate design of new protein–protein interactions is a longstanding goal of computational protein design. However, most computationally designed interfaces fail to form experimentally. This investigation compares five previously described successful de novo interface designs with 158 failures. Both sets of proteins were designed with the molecular modeling program Rosetta. Designs were considered a success if a high‐resolution crystal structure of the complex closely matched the design model and the equilibrium dissociation constant for binding was less than 10 μ M. The successes and failures represent a wide variety of interface types and design goals including heterodimers, homodimers, peptide‐protein interactions, one‐sided designs (i.e., where only one of the proteins was mutated) and two‐sided designs. The most striking feature of the successful designs is that they have fewer polar atoms at their interfaces than many of the failed designs. Designs that attempted to create extensive sets of interface‐spanning hydrogen bonds resulted in no detectable binding. In contrast, polar atoms make up more than 40% of the interface area of many natural dimers, and native interfaces often contain extensive hydrogen bonding networks. These results suggest that Rosetta may not be accurately balancing hydrogen bonding and electrostatic energies against desolvation penalties and that design processes may not include sufficient sampling to identify side chains in preordered conformations that can fully satisfy the hydrogen bonding potential of the interface.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pro.2187

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
Stranges, P. B., & Kuhlman, B.
Venue
Protein Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-11-29
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
74-82
ISSN
  • 0961-8368 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-896X
OpenAlex
W2148895983
Cited by
231
References
3
FWCI
3.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.