Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 738

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Crystallographic comparison of the estrogen and progesterone receptor’s ligand binding domains

Open access
Tanenbaum, David M., Wang, Yong, Williams, Shawn P., Sigler, Paul B.·1998·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The 2.8-Å crystal structure of the complex formed by estradiol and the human estrogen receptor-α ligand binding domain (hERαLBD) is described and compared with the recently reported structure of the progesterone complex of the human progesterone receptor ligand binding domain, as well as with similar structures of steroid/nuclear receptor LBDs solved elsewhere. The hormone-bound hERαLBD forms a distinctly different and probably more physiologically important dimer interface than its progesterone counterpart. A comparison of the specificity determinants of hormone binding reveals a common structural theme of mutually supported van der Waals and hydrogen-bonded interactions involving highly conserved residues. The previously suggested mechanism by which the estrogen receptor distinguishes estradiol’s unique 3-hydroxy group from the 3-keto function of most other steroids is now described in atomic detail. Mapping of mutagenesis results points to a coactivator-binding surface that includes the region around the “signature sequence” as well as helix 12, where the ligand-dependent conformation of the activation function 2 core is similar in all previously solved steroid/nuclear receptor LBDs. A peculiar crystal packing event displaces helix 12 in the hERαLBD reported here, suggesting a higher degree of dynamic variability than expected for this critical substructure.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.95.11.5998

Cites

1 of 1 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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 738

Metadata

Authors
Tanenbaum, D. M., Wang, Y., Williams, S. P., & Sigler, P. B.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
1998-05-26
Volume
95
Issue
11
Pages
5998-6003
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2116474322
Cited by
738
References
1
FWCI
25.22
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: Crystallographic comparison of the estrogen and progesterone receptor’s ligand binding domains. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.95.11.5998
The paper
Tanenbaum, D. M., Wang, Y., Williams, S. P., & Sigler, P. B. (1998). Crystallographic comparison of the estrogen and progesterone receptor’s ligand binding domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.11.5998

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.