The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computational Alanine Scanning of Protein-Protein Interfaces
Abstract
Protein-protein interactions are key components of all signal transduction processes, so methods to alter these interactions promise to become important tools in dissecting function of connectivities in these networks. We have developed a fast computational approach for the prediction of energetically important amino acid residues in protein-protein interfaces (available at http://robetta.bakerlab.org/alaninescan ), which we, following Peter Kollman, have termed "computational alanine scanning." The input consists of a three-dimensional structure of a protein-protein complex; output is a list of "hot spots," or amino acid side chains that are predicted to significantly destabilize the interface when mutated to alanine, analogous to the results of experimental alanine-scanning mutagenesis. 79% of hot spots and 68% of neutral residues were correctly predicted in a test of 233 mutations in 19 protein-protein complexes. A single interface can be analyzed in minutes. The computational methodology has been validated by the successful design of protein interfaces with new specificity and activity, and has yielded new insights into the mechanisms of receptor specificity and promiscuity in biological systems.
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
Guerois, R., Nielsen, J. E., & Serrano, L. (2002) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-2836(02)00442-4 · Cited by 1,728
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
The Rosetta All-Atom Energy Function for Macromolecular Modeling and Design
Alford, R. F., Leaver-Fay, A., Jeliazkov, J. R., O’Meara, M. J., DiMaio, F. P., Park, H., Shapovalov, M. V., Renfrew, P. D., Mulligan, V. K., Kappel, K., et al. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00125 · Cited by 1,532
Self-citationHarnessing protein folding neural networks for peptide–protein docking
Tsaban, T., Varga, J. K., Avraham, O., Ben-Aharon, Z., Khramushin, A., & Schueler-Furman, O. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27838-9 · Cited by 1,205
Macromolecular modeling and design in Rosetta: recent methods and frameworks
Leman, J. K., Weitzner, B. D., Lewis, S. M., Adolf-Bryfogle, J., Alam, N., Alford, R. F., Aprahamian, M., Baker, D., Barlow, K. A., Barth, P., et al. (2020) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-020-0848-2 · Cited by 888
Self-citationBeAtMuSiC: prediction of changes in protein–protein binding affinity on mutations
Dehouck, Y., Kwasigroch, J. M., Rooman, M., & Gilis, D. (2013) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt450 · Cited by 338
Engineered ACE2 receptor traps potently neutralize SARS-CoV-2
Glasgow, A., Glasgow, J., Limonta, D., Solomon, P., Lui, I., Zhang, Y., Nix, M. A., Rettko, N. J., Zha, S., Yamin, R., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2016093117 · Cited by 251
Self-citationBlazer, L. L., & Neubig, R. R. (2009) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2008.151 · Cited by 197
Systematic Targeting of Protein–Protein Interactions
Modell, A. E., Blosser, S. L., & Arora, P. S. (2016) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2016.05.008 · Cited by 184
Systematic Analysis of Helical Protein Interfaces Reveals Targets for Synthetic Inhibitors
Jochim, A. L., & Arora, P. S. (2010) · ACS Chemical Biology · doi:10.1021/cb1001747 · Cited by 191
Cui, Q., Sulea, T., Schrag, J. D., Munger, C., Hung, M.-N., Naïm, M., Cygler, M., & Purisima, E. O. (2008) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2008.04.035 · Cited by 162
Targeting protein–protein interactions, a wide open field for drug design
Bakail, M., & Ochsenbein, F. (2016) · Comptes Rendus. Chimie · doi:10.1016/j.crci.2015.12.004 · Cited by 117
Context-Based Identification of Protein-Protein Interfaces and “Hot-Spot” Residues
Geppert, T., Hoy, B., Wessler, S., & Schneider, G. (2011) · Chemistry & Biology · doi:10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.01.005 · Cited by 80
Dillon, M., Yin, Y., Zhou, J., McCarty, L., Ellerman, D., Slaga, D., Junttila, T. T., Han, G., Sandoval, W., Ovacik, M. A., et al. (2017) · mAbs · doi:10.1080/19420862.2016.1267089 · Cited by 75
Plucking the high hanging fruit: A systematic approach for targeting protein–protein interactions
Raj, M., Bullock, B. N., & Arora, P. S. (2013) · Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.bmc.2012.11.023 · Cited by 66
Dey, D., Nagaraja, V., & Ramakumar, S. (2017) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2016.11.014 · Cited by 46
Substrate recognition principles for the PP2A-B55 protein phosphatase
Kruse, T., Garvanska, D. H., Varga, J. K., Garland, W., McEwan, B. C., Hein, J. B., Weisser, M. B., Benavides-Puy, I., Chan, C. B., Sotelo-Parrilla, P., et al. (2024) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adp5491 · Cited by 26
Protein-Protein Interactions as Drug Targets
Wendt, M. D. (2012) · Topics in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28965-1_1 · Cited by 9
Putative staphylococcal enterotoxin possesses two common structural motifs for MHC-II binding
Rahman, S., Saha, S., Dasgupta, S. B., & Das, A. K. (2024) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.128437
Metadata
- Authors
- Kortemme, T., Kim, D. E., & Baker, D.
- Venue
- Science's STKE
- Published
- 2004-02-10
- Volume
- 2004
- Issue
- 219
- Pages
- pl2-pl2
- ISSN
- 1525-8882 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1999390565
- Cited by
- 585
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.
