Cited by 1,122Protein Structure and DynamicsBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksProtein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis

Flexible nets: The roles of intrinsic disorder in protein interaction networks

Open access
Dunker, A. Keith, Cortese, Marc S., Romero, Pedro, Iakoucheva, Lilia M., Uversky, Vladimir N.·2005·The FEBS Journal

Abstract

Proteins participate in complex sets of interactions that represent the mechanistic foundation for much of the physiology and function of the cell. These protein–protein interactions are organized into exquisitely complex networks. The architecture of protein–protein interaction networks was recently proposed to be scale‐free, with most of the proteins having only one or two connections but with relatively fewer ‘hubs’ possessing tens, hundreds or more links. The high level of hub connectivity must somehow be reflected in protein structure. What structural quality of hub proteins enables them to interact with large numbers of diverse targets? One possibility would be to employ binding regions that have the ability to bind multiple, structurally diverse partners. This trait can be imparted by the incorporation of intrinsic disorder in one or both partners. To illustrate the value of such contributions, this review examines the roles of intrinsic disorder in protein network architecture. We show that there are three general ways that intrinsic disorder can contribute: First, intrinsic disorder can serve as the structural basis for hub protein promiscuity; secondly, intrinsically disordered proteins can bind to structured hub proteins; and thirdly, intrinsic disorder can provide flexible linkers between functional domains with the linkers enabling mechanisms that facilitate binding diversity. An important research direction will be to determine what fraction of protein–protein interaction in regulatory networks relies on intrinsic disorder.

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 · 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2005.04948.x

Cites

203 of 203 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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Schulz GE (1979) Nucleotide binding proteins. In Molecular Mechanism of Biological Recognition (Balaban M, ed.), pp. 79-94. Elsevier ⁄ North-Holland Biomedical Press, New York.
  2. Cohen P & Klee CB (1988) Calmodulin. Elsevier, New York. 132
  3. Oldfield CJ (2002) Predictions of disordered proteins and protein binding regions: applications to structural genomics. Honors Thesis, Washington State University Pullman, Washington. 147

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dunker, A. K., Cortese, M. S., Romero, P., Iakoucheva, L. M., & Uversky, V. N.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Rockefeller University (US)
  • Russian Academy of Sciences (RU)
Corresponding author
Dunker, A. Keith
Venue
The FEBS Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-10
Volume
272
Issue
20
Pages
5129-5148
ISSN
  • 1742-464X (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-4658
OpenAlex
W1975121208
Cited by
1,122
References
203
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 75 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 80
FWCI
4.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • FEBS Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0444818)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM007688, 1 R01 LM007688-0A1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis
Keywords
intrinsic disorder, intrinsically disordered proteins, protein-protein interaction network, scale-free networks, hub proteins, binding promiscuity, flexible linkers, protein structure, regulatory networks
MeSH terms
Glycogen Synthase Kinase 3 beta, Animals, Binding Sites, Calmodulin, Cell Physiological Phenomena, Humans, Models, Biological, Models, Molecular, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Protein Structure, Tertiary, Cyclin-Dependent Kinases, HMGA Proteins, Glycogen Synthase Kinase 3, Xeroderma Pigmentosum Group A Protein

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