↓ Skip to main content

Specificity and Affinity Quantification of Flexible Recognition from Underlying Energy Landscape Topography

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Specificity and Affinity Quantification of Flexible Recognition from Underlying Energy Landscape Topography
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, August 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003782
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiakun Chu, Jin Wang

Abstract

Flexibility in biomolecular recognition is essential and critical for many cellular activities. Flexible recognition often leads to moderate affinity but high specificity, in contradiction with the conventional wisdom that high affinity and high specificity are coupled. Furthermore, quantitative understanding of the role of flexibility in biomolecular recognition is still challenging. Here, we meet the challenge by quantifying the intrinsic biomolecular recognition energy landscapes with and without flexibility through the underlying density of states. We quantified the thermodynamic intrinsic specificity by the topography of the intrinsic binding energy landscape and the kinetic specificity by association rate. We found that the thermodynamic and kinetic specificity are strongly correlated. Furthermore, we found that flexibility decreases binding affinity on one hand, but increases binding specificity on the other hand, and the decreasing or increasing proportion of affinity and specificity are strongly correlated with the degree of flexibility. This shows more (less) flexibility leads to weaker (stronger) coupling between affinity and specificity. Our work provides a theoretical foundation and quantitative explanation of the previous qualitative studies on the relationship among flexibility, affinity and specificity. In addition, we found that the folding energy landscapes are more funneled with binding, indicating that binding helps folding during the recognition. Finally, we demonstrated that the whole binding-folding energy landscapes can be integrated by the rigid binding and isolated folding energy landscapes under weak flexibility. Our results provide a novel way to quantify the affinity and specificity in flexible biomolecular recognition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 32%
Student > Master 9 22%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 29%
Physics and Astronomy 3 7%
Chemical Engineering 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 5 12%
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 22 August 2014.
All research outputs
#20,674,485
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#8,211
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,228
of 247,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#138
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 247,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.