↓ Skip to main content

Clustering and percolation in protein loop structures

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Molecular and Cell Biology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Clustering and percolation in protein loop structures
Published in
BMC Molecular and Cell Biology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12900-015-0049-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xubiao Peng, Jianfeng He, Antti J. Niemi

Abstract

High precision protein loop modelling remains a challenge, both in template based and template independent approaches to protein structure prediction. We introduce the concepts of protein loop clustering and percolation, to develop a quantitative approach to systematically classify the modular building blocks of loops in crystallographic folded proteins. These fragments are all different parameterisations of a unique kink solution to a generalised discrete nonlinear Schrödinger (DNLS) equation. Accordingly, the fragments are also local energy minima of the ensuing energy function. We show how the loop fragments cover practically all ultrahigh resolution crystallographic protein structures in Protein Data Bank (PDB), with a 0.2 Ångström root-mean-square (RMS) precision. We find that no more than 12 different loop fragments are needed, to describe around 38 % of ultrahigh resolution loops in PDB. But there is also a large number of loop fragments that are either unique, or very rare, and examples of unique fragments are found even in the structure of a myoglobin. Protein loops are built in a modular fashion. The loops are composed of fragments that can be modelled by the kink of the DNLS equation. The majority of loop fragments are also common, which are shared by many proteins. These common fragments are probably important for supporting the overall protein conformation. But there are also several fragments that are either unique to a given protein, or very rare. Such fragments are probably related to the function of the protein. Furthermore, we have found that the amino acid sequence does not determine the structure in a unique fashion. There are many examples of loop fragments with an identical amino acid sequence, but with a very different structure.

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 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 %
Student > Bachelor 4 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 3 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Mathematics 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Other 4 27%
Unknown 2 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 02 November 2015.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Molecular and Cell Biology
#896
of 1,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,511
of 295,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Molecular and Cell Biology
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,233 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. 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 295,440 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.