English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The formation of homodimer complexes for interface stability, catalysis and regulation is intriguing. The mechanisms of homodimer complexations are even more interesting. Some homodimers form without intermediates (two-state (2S)) and others through the formation of stable intermediates (three-state (3S)). Here, we analyze 41 homodimer (25 2S and 16 3S) structures determined by X-ray crystallography to estimate structural differences between them. The analysis suggests that a combination of structural properties such as monomer length, subunit interface area, ratio of interface to interior hydrophobicity can predominately distinguish 2S and 3S homodimers. These findings are useful in the prediction of homodimer folding and binding mechanisms using structural data.

Structural features differentiate the mechanisms between 2S (2 state) and 3S (3 state) folding homodimers