The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Anchor residues in protein–protein interactions
Open accessAbstract
We show that the mechanism for molecular recognition requires one of the interacting proteins, usually the smaller of the two, to anchor a specific side chain in a structurally constrained binding groove of the other protein, providing a steric constraint that helps to stabilize a native-like bound intermediate. We identify the anchor residues in 39 protein–protein complexes and verify that, even in the absence of their interacting partners, the anchor side chains are found in conformations similar to those observed in the bound complex. These ready-made recognition motifs correspond to surface side chains that bury the largest solvent-accessible surface area after forming the complex (≥100 Å 2 ). The existence of such anchors implies that binding pathways can avoid kinetically costly structural rearrangements at the core of the binding interface, allowing for a relatively smooth recognition process. Once anchors are docked, an induced fit process further contributes to forming the final high-affinity complex. This later stage involves flexible (solvent-exposed) side chains that latch to the encounter complex in the periphery of the binding pocket. Our results suggest that the evolutionary conservation of anchor side chains applies to the actual structure that these residues assume before the encounter complex and not just to their loci. Implications for protein docking are also discussed.
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
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
Unraveling hot spots in binding interfaces: progress and challenges
DeLano, W. L. (2002) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/s0959-440x(02)00283-x · Cited by 767
Cited by
Putnam, C. D., Hammel, M., Hura, G. L., & Tainer, J. A. (2007) · Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics · doi:10.1017/s0033583507004635 · Cited by 1,184
Csermely, P., Palotai, R., & Nussinov, R. (2010) · Trends in Biochemical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2010.04.009 · Cited by 821
The interplay between structure and function in intrinsically unstructured proteins
Tompa, P. (2005) · FEBS Letters · doi:10.1016/j.febslet.2005.03.072 · Cited by 717
Principles of Protein−Protein Interactions: What are the Preferred Ways For Proteins To Interact?
Keskin, O., Gursoy, A., Ma, B., & Nussinov, R. (2008) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr040409x · Cited by 697
ZRANK: Reranking protein docking predictions with an optimized energy function
Pierce, B., & Weng, Z. (2007) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.21373 · Cited by 444
Metadata
- Authors
- Rajamani, D., Thiel, S., Vajda, S., & Camacho, C. J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2004-07-21
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 31
- Pages
- 11287-11292
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W1998063251
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Anchor residues in protein–protein interactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0401942101
- The paper
- Rajamani, D., Thiel, S., Vajda, S., & Camacho, C. J. (2004). Anchor residues in protein–protein interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0401942101
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.