↓ Skip to main content

Creation of artificial protein–protein interactions using α-helices as interfaces

Overview of attention for article published in Biophysical Reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Creation of artificial protein–protein interactions using α-helices as interfaces
Published in
Biophysical Reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12551-017-0352-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sota Yagi, Satoshi Akanuma, Akihiko Yamagishi

Abstract

Designing novel protein-protein interactions (PPIs) with high affinity is a challenging task. Directed evolution, a combination of randomization of the gene for the protein of interest and selection using a display technique, is one of the most powerful tools for producing a protein binder. However, the selected proteins often bind to the target protein at an undesired surface. More problematically, some selected proteins bind to their targets even though they are unfolded. Current state-of-the-art computational design methods have successfully created novel protein binders. These computational methods have optimized the non-covalent interactions at interfaces and thus produced artificial protein complexes. However, to date there are only a limited number of successful examples of computationally designed de novo PPIs. De novo design of coiled-coil proteins has been extensively performed and, therefore, a large amount of knowledge of the sequence-structure relationship of coiled-coil proteins has been accumulated. Taking advantage of this knowledge, de novo design of inter-helical interactions has been used to produce artificial PPIs. Here, we review recent progress in the in silico design and rational design of de novo PPIs and the use of α-helices as interfaces.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 26%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 35%
Chemistry 6 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,680,025
of 23,592,647 outputs
Outputs from Biophysical Reviews
#126
of 825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,110
of 442,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biophysical Reviews
#10
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,592,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 825 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.