The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Distinct ligand preferences of Src homology 3 domains from Src, Yes, Abl, Cortactin, p53bp2, PLCgamma, Crk, and Grb2.
Open accessAbstract
Src homology 3 (SH3) domains are conserved protein modules 50-70 amino acids long found in a variety of proteins with important roles in signal transduction. These domains have been shown to mediate protein-protein interactions by binding short proline-rich regions in ligand proteins. However, the ligand preferences of most SH3 domains and the role of these preferences in regulating SH3-mediated protein-protein interactions remain poorly defined. We have used a phage-displayed library of peptides of the form X6PXXPX6 to identify ligands for eight different SH3 domains. Using this approach, we have determined that each SH3 domain prefers peptide ligands with distinct sequence characteristics. Specifically, we have found that the Src SH3 domain selects peptides sharing the consensus motif LXXRPLPXpsiP, whereas Yes SH3 selects psiXXRPLPXLP, Abl SH3 selects PPXthetaXPPPpsiP, Cortactin SH3 selects +PPpsiPXKPXWL, p53bp2 SH3 selects RPXpsiPpsiR+SXP, PLCgamma SH3 selects PPVPPRPXXTL, Crk N-terminal SH3 selects psiPpsiLPpsiK, and Grb2 N-terminal SH3 selects +thetaDXPLPXLP (where psi, theta, and + represent aliphatic, aromatic, and basic residues, respectively). Furthermore, we have compared the binding of phage expressing peptides related to each consensus motif to a panel of 12 SH3 domains. Results from these experiments support the ligand preferences identified in the peptide library screen and evince the ability of SH3 domains to discern subtle differences in the primary structure of potential ligands. Finally, we have found that most known SH3-binding proteins contain proline-rich regions conforming to the ligand preferences of their respective SH3 targets.
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
Protein modules and signalling networks
Pawson, T. (1995) · Nature · doi:10.1038/373573a0 · Cited by 2,420
Modular binding domains in signal transduction proteins
Cohen, G. B., Ren, R., & Baltimore, D. (1995) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(95)90406-9 · Cited by 951
Cited by
Naisbitt, S., Kim, E., Tu, J. C., Xiao, B., Sala, C., Valtschanoff, J., Weinberg, R. J., Worley, P. F., & Sheng, M. (1999) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80809-0 · Cited by 1,009
SH3 domains: complexity in moderation
Mayer, B. J. (2001) · Journal of Cell Science · doi:10.1242/jcs.114.7.1253 · Cited by 788
Vassilev, A., Kaneko, K. J., Shu, H., Zhao, Y., & DePamphilis, M. L. (2001) · Genes & Development · doi:10.1101/gad.888601 · Cited by 719
The Shank family of scaffold proteins
Sheng, M., & Kim, E. (2000) · Journal of Cell Science · doi:10.1242/jcs.113.11.1851 · Cited by 578
CTCF is a uniquely versatile transcription regulator linked to epigenetics and disease
Ohlsson, R., Renkawitz, R., & Lobanenkov, V. (2001) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/s0168-9525(01)02366-6 · Cited by 591
Metadata
- Authors
- Sparks, A. B., Rider, J. E., Hoffman, N. G., Fowlkes, D. M., Quillam, L. A., & Kay, B. K.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 1996-02-20
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1540-1544
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W1995143022
- Cited by
- 348
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.01
- 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: Distinct ligand preferences of Src homology 3 domains from Src, Yes, Abl, Cortactin, p53bp2, PLCgamma, Crk, and Grb2. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.93.4.1540
- The paper
- Sparks, A. B., Rider, J. E., Hoffman, N. G., Fowlkes, D. M., Quillam, L. A., & Kay, B. K. (1996). Distinct ligand preferences of Src homology 3 domains from Src, Yes, Abl, Cortactin, p53bp2, PLCgamma, Crk, and Grb2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.4.1540
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.