Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38885277›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

Computational design of Periplasmic binding protein biosensors guided by molecular dynamics.

Jack M O'Shea, Peter Doerner, Annis Richardson, Christopher W Wood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jack M O'SheaSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9694-7340
Peter DoernerSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7218-8469
Annis RichardsonSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2061-4902
Christopher W WoodSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1243-3105

Funding

BBSRC BB/W013320/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Periplasmic binding proteins (PBPs) are bacterial proteins commonly used as scaffolds for substrate-detecting biosensors. In these biosensors, effector proteins (for example fluorescent proteins) are inserted into a PBP such that the effector protein's output changes upon PBP-substate binding. The insertion site is often determined by comparison of PBP apo/holo crystal structures, but random insertion libraries have shown that this can miss the best sites. Here, we present a PBP biosensor design method based on residue contact analysis from molecular dynamics. This computational method identifies the best previously known insertion sites in the maltose binding PBP, and suggests further previously unknown sites. We experimentally characterise fluorescent protein insertions at these new sites, finding they too give functional biosensors. Furthermore, our method is sufficiently flexible to both suggest insertion sites compatible with a variety of effector proteins, and be applied to binding proteins beyond PBPs.

Indexed as

Biosensing TechniquesMolecular Dynamics SimulationPeriplasmic Binding ProteinsBinding SitesComputational BiologyProtein BindingPeriplasmic Binding Proteins

Identifiers

PMID38885277
PMCPMC11213343

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.