↓ Skip to main content

Crystal Cryocooling Distorts Conformational Heterogeneity in a Model Michaelis Complex of DHFR

Overview of attention for article published in Structure, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Crystal Cryocooling Distorts Conformational Heterogeneity in a Model Michaelis Complex of DHFR
Published in
Structure, May 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.str.2014.04.016
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Most macromolecular X-ray structures are determined from cryocooled crystals, but it is unclear whether cryocooling distorts functionally relevant flexibility. Here we compare independently acquired pairs of high-resolution data sets of a model Michaelis complex of dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), collected by separate groups at both room and cryogenic temperatures. These data sets allow us to isolate the differences between experimental procedures and between temperatures. Our analyses of multiconformer models and time-averaged ensembles suggest that cryocooling suppresses and otherwise modifies side-chain and main-chain conformational heterogeneity, quenching dynamic contact networks. Despite some idiosyncratic differences, most changes from room temperature to cryogenic temperature are conserved and likely reflect temperature-dependent solvent remodeling. Both cryogenic data sets point to additional conformations not evident in the corresponding room temperature data sets, suggesting that cryocooling does not merely trap preexisting conformational heterogeneity. Our results demonstrate that crystal cryocooling consistently distorts the energy landscape of DHFR, a paragon for understanding functional protein dynamics.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 117 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 26%
Researcher 31 26%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Professor 8 7%
Student > Master 8 7%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 16 13%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 34 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 21%
Chemistry 21 17%
Physics and Astronomy 10 8%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 19 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 May 2015.
All research outputs
#16,737,750
of 27,896,264 outputs
Outputs from Structure
#2,874
of 3,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,537
of 243,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Structure
#15
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,896,264 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 243,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.