Cited by 21Protein Structure and DynamicsEnzyme Structure and FunctionRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms

The role of local versus nonlocal physicochemical restraints in determining protein native structure

Open access
Skolnick, Jeffrey, Gao, Mu·2021·Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Abstract

The tertiary structure of a native protein is dictated by the interplay of local secondary structure propensities, hydrogen bonding, and tertiary interactions. It is argued that the space of known protein topologies covers all single domain folds and results from the compactness of the native structure and excluded volume. Protein compactness combined with the chirality of the protein's side chains also yields native-like Ramachandran plots. It is the many-body, tertiary interactions among residues that collectively select for the global structure that a particular protein sequence adopts. This explains why the recent advances in deep-learning approaches that predict protein side-chain contacts, the distance matrix between residues, and sequence alignments are successful. They succeed because they implicitly learned the many-body interactions among protein residues.

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 · 10.1016/j.sbi.2020.10.008

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Skolnick, J., & Gao, M.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
  • Skolnick, Jeffrey
  • Gao, Mu
Venue
Current Opinion in Structural Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
68
Pages
1-8
ISSN
0959-440X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3094695530
Cited by
21
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Structural Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
NIH (R35GM118039)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Keywords
protein folding, protein tertiary structure, nonlocal interactions, protein compactness, excluded volume, Ramachandran plot, many-body interactions, hydrogen bonding, secondary structure propensity
MeSH terms
Models, Molecular, Proteins, Sequence Alignment, Protein Structure, Secondary, Protein Structure, Tertiary, Protein Folding

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