↓ Skip to main content

Hypothesis: structural heterogeneity of the unfolded proteins originating from the coupling of the local clusters and the long-range distance distribution

Overview of attention for article published in Biophysical Reviews, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Hypothesis: structural heterogeneity of the unfolded proteins originating from the coupling of the local clusters and the long-range distance distribution
Published in
Biophysical Reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12551-018-0405-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Satoshi Takahashi, Aya Yoshida, Hiroyuki Oikawa

Abstract

We propose a hypothesis that explains two apparently contradicting observations for the heterogeneity of the unfolded proteins. First, the line confocal method of the single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer (sm-FRET) spectroscopy revealed that the unfolded proteins possess broad peaks in the FRET efficiency plot, implying the significant heterogeneity that lasts longer than milliseconds. Second, the fluorescence correlation method demonstrated that the unfolded proteins fluctuate in the time scale shorter than 100 ns. To formulate the hypothesis, we first summarize the recent consensus for the structure and dynamics of the unfolded proteins. We next discuss the conventional method of the sm-FRET spectroscopy and its limitations for the analysis of the unfolded proteins, followed by the advantages of the line confocal method that revealed the heterogeneity. Finally, we propose that the structural heterogeneity formed by the local clustering of hydrophobic residues modulates the distribution of the long-range distance between the labeled chromophores, resulting in the broadening of the peak in the FRET efficiency plot. A clustering of hydrophobic residues around the chromophore might further contribute to the broadening. The proposed clusters are important for the understanding of protein folding mechanism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 20%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 33%
Chemistry 3 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Chemical Engineering 1 7%
Physics and Astronomy 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,465,050
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Biophysical Reviews
#704
of 799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#383,688
of 446,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biophysical Reviews
#14
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 799 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 446,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.