ArticleBiophysical journal2019
Harmonizing Experimental Data with Modeling to Predict Membrane Protein Insertion in Yeast.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional targeting of membrane transporters and enzymes to peroxisomes.Nature chemical biology · 2025Article
- Lhs1 dependent ERAD is determined by transmembrane domain context.The Biochemical journal · 2023Article
- Distinct classes of misfolded proteins differentially affect the growth of yeast compromised for proteasome function.FEBS letters · 2021Article
- Membrane proteins enter the fold.Current opinion in structural biology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Membrane proteins must adopt their proper topologies within biological membranes, but achieving the correct topology is compromised by the presence of marginally hydrophobic transmembrane helices (TMHs). In this study, we report on a new model membrane protein in yeast that harbors two TMHs fused to an unstable nucleotide-binding domain. Because the second helix (TMH2) in this reporter has an unfavorable predicted free energy of insertion, we employed established methods to generate variants that alter TMH2 insertion free energy. We first found that altering TMH2 did not significantly affect the extent of protein degradation by the cellular quality control machinery. Next, we correlated predicted insertion free energies from a knowledge-based energy scale with the measured apparent free energies of TMH2 insertion. Although the predicted and apparent insertion energies showed a similar trend, the predicted free-energy changes spanned an unanticipated narrow range. By instead using a physics-based model, we obtained a broader range of free energies that agreed considerably better with the magnitude of the experimentally derived values. Nevertheless, some variants still inserted better in yeast than predicted from energy-based scales. Therefore, molecular dynamics simulations were performed and indicated that the corresponding mutations induced conformational changes within TMH2, which altered the number of stabilizing hydrogen bonds. Together, our results offer insight into the ability of the cellular quality control machinery to recognize conformationally distinct misfolded topomers, provide a model to assess TMH insertion in vivo, and indicate that TMH insertion energy scales may be limited depending on the specific protein and the mutation present.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.