↓ Skip to main content

Prediction and Experimental Characterization of nsSNPs Altering Human PDZ-Binding Motifs

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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.
Title
Prediction and Experimental Characterization of nsSNPs Altering Human PDZ-Binding Motifs
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0094507
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Gfeller, Andreas Ernst, Nick Jarvik, Sachdev S. Sidhu, Gary D. Bader

Abstract

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are a major contributor to genetic and phenotypic variation within populations. Non-synonymous SNPs (nsSNPs) modify the sequence of proteins and can affect their folding or binding properties. Experimental analysis of all nsSNPs is currently unfeasible and therefore computational predictions of the molecular effect of nsSNPs are helpful to guide experimental investigations. While some nsSNPs can be accurately characterized, for instance if they fall into strongly conserved or well annotated regions, the molecular consequences of many others are more challenging to predict. In particular, nsSNPs affecting less structured, and often less conserved regions, are difficult to characterize. Binding sites that mediate protein-protein or other protein interactions are an important class of functional sites on proteins and can be used to help interpret nsSNPs. Binding sites targeted by the PDZ modular peptide recognition domain have recently been characterized. Here we use this data to show that it is possible to computationally identify nsSNPs in PDZ binding motifs that modify or prevent binding to the proteins containing the motifs. We confirm these predictions by experimentally validating a selected subset with ELISA. Our work also highlights the importance of better characterizing linear motifs in proteins as many of these can be affected by genetic variations.

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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Sri Lanka 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 28 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 25%
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Professor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 22%
Computer Science 4 13%
Chemistry 3 9%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 4 13%
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 14 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,299,491
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#130,425
of 194,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,632
of 228,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,385
of 5,345 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 228,162 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,345 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.