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 accessAbstract
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.
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
The nuclear receptor superfamily: the second decade
Mangelsdorf, D. J., Thummel, C., Beato, M., Herrlich, P., Schütz, G., Umesono, K., Blumberg, B., Kastner, P., Mark, M., Chambon, P., et al. (1995) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(95)90199-x · Cited by 6,964
Cited by
Estrogen receptors: how do they signal and what are their targets
Heldring, N., Pike, A., Andersson, S., Matthews, J., Cheng, G., Hartman, J., Tujague, M., Ström, A., Treuter, E., Warner, M., et al. (2007) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00026.2006 · Cited by 1,857
Structural Evidence for Ligand Specificity in the Binding Domain of the Human Androgen Receptor
Matias, P. M., Donner, P., Coelho, R., Thomaz, M., Peixoto, C., Macedo, S., Otto, N., Joschko, S., Scholz, P., Wegg, A., et al. (2000) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.m004571200 · Cited by 608
Structural Overview of the Nuclear Receptor Superfamily: Insights into Physiology and Therapeutics
Huang, P., Chandra, V., & Rastinejad, F. (2010) · Annual Review of Physiology · doi:10.1146/annurev-physiol-021909-135917 · Cited by 533
The human glucocorticoid receptor: molecular basis of biologic function
Nicolaides, N. C., Galata, Z., Kino, T., Chrousos, G. P., & Charmandari, E. (2010) · Steroids · doi:10.1016/j.steroids.2009.09.002 · Cited by 436
The structure of the nuclear hormone receptors
Kumar, R., & Thompson, E. B. (1999) · Steroids · doi:10.1016/s0039-128x(99)00014-8 · Cited by 435
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.