Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Investigations of the Underlying Mechanisms of HIF-1{\alpha} and CITED2 Binding to TAZ1

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A coarse-grained molecular dynamics study of the ternary TAZ1–HIF-1α–CITED2 system claims that CITED2 outcompetes HIF-1α for TAZ1 in both thermodynamics and kinetics, with the CITED2-bound basin lowest by 1.91 kT and a five-fold faster…

desk verdict A competent ternary SBM study that likely gets the qualitative competition right, but the central free-energy gap rests on a single calibrated point with no sensitivity analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00911 v1 pith:PT32YOI5 submitted 2019-09-03 q-bio.BM physics.bio-ph

Wen-Ting Chu , Xiakun Chu , Jin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.BMphysics.bio-ph
keywords TAZ1HIF-1αCITED2intrinsicallydisorderedproteinsstructure-basedmodelmoleculardynamicsbindingcompetitionfreeenergysurface
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that in the three-molecule system of TAZ1 with HIF-1α and CITED2, CITED2 wins the competition not just thermodynamically but also kinetically. Using coarse-grained structure-based molecular dynamics, it finds the TAZ1–CITED2 bound state is the global free-energy basin, about 1.91 kT below the TAZ1–HIF-1α bound state, and that CITED2 binds TAZ1 roughly five times faster in direct binding. The simulations also map an intermediate state through which one ligand displaces the other, giving a concrete mechanism for why CITED2 can efficiently replace HIF-1α. If correct, this provides a mechanistic explanation for the experimentally observed dominance of the TAZ1–CITED2 complex and identifies the residues that matter most at the early step of binding.

What carries the argument

The central object is a weighted structure-based coarse-grained model: a Cα model with native contacts weighted by their frequency across the 20 NMR conformers of each complex, and with Debye–Hückel electrostatics added. The binary complexes are parameterized so that each reproduces the experimental dissociation constant of about 10 nM, and the same interaction strengths are then used in the ternary simulation. The argument is carried by the ternary free-energy surface projected on the fractions of native inter-molecular contacts, Qinter(TAZ1–HIF-1α) and Qinter(TAZ1–CITED2), and by mean first-passage times computed from kinetic simulations. The key mechanistic state is the intermediate IS, where one ligand is partly bound while the conserved LPQL or LPEL motif of the other ligand occupies the shared binding site; this state links the direct-binding and replacement pathways.

What would settle it

A competition experiment at 1:1:1 TAZ1:HIF-1α:CITED2 with single-molecule or stopped-flow kinetics could directly measure whether CITED2 occupies TAZ1 first and more often than HIF-1α; the paper predicts CITED2 should win the first-binding event in the large majority of runs, and that mutating CITED2 residues Phe222/Ile223 should slow CITED2 binding more than mutating HIF-1α residues Gly791/Leu792/Gln824 slows HIF-1α binding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that TAZ1–CITED2 is the dominant complex in a ternary TAZ1:HIF-1α:CITED2 system, both at equilibrium and in kinetics. On the two-dimensional free-energy surface projected onto the binding reaction coordinates of the two ligands, the CITED2-bound basin is lowest at 0.00 kT, the HIF-1α-bound basin is 1.91 kT higher, and an intermediate state where both ligands partially engage TAZ1 is 3.07 kT higher. Direct binding of CITED2 has a mean first-passage time of 0.286 ns versus 1.431 ns for HIF-1α, and in 200 unbiased binding runs the system reaches the CITED2-bound state first in 177 runs. Replacement of HIF-1α by CITED2 is also faster than the reverse (60.8 ns versus 163.2 ns mean first-passage time), mostly through the intermediate state. The paper concludes that CITED2 dominates both thermodynamically and kinetically, in line with the experimental findings.

Load-bearing premise

The central result assumes that the two tuning knobs that set how strongly TAZ1 attracts HIF-1α versus CITED2, calibrated so each complex alone matches the measured 10 nM affinity, also hold in the three-molecule system; if the true ternary strengths differ, the predicted CITED2 dominance could vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CITED2 is truly kinetically favored, then at equal concentrations CITED2 will occupy TAZ1 before HIF-1α has time to establish its complex, making the competition a race rather than a simple equilibrium selection.
  • The free-energy gap of 1.91 kT in the ternary system means that even though the two binary affinities are nearly equal, the presence of both ligands amplifies the small difference and shifts the population strongly toward CITED2.
  • The intermediate state IS, with both ligands simultaneously touching TAZ1, gives a concrete structural target for experiments: mutations that perturb the N-terminus of CITED2 or the C-terminus of HIF-1α should alter the displacement rates in predictable ways.
  • The contact-map and φ-value analysis predicts different binding orders for direct versus replacement pathways, so experiments that probe specific residues can distinguish whether a mutation affects initial binding or the displacement step.
  • The simulated φ values agree with most experimental φ values for HIF-1α, supporting the view that the native hydrophobic binding interactions form after the transition state during TAZ1–HIF-1α binding.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension the paper does not make: if CITED2's kinetic advantage comes from its simpler single-helix fold, truncating the N-terminal L1 region of CITED2 should slow direct binding more than truncating the C-terminus of HIF-1α slows its binding; the paper's transition-state contact maps predict this asymmetry.
  • The ternary ordering depends on the calibrated interaction strengths βH=1.1 and βC=0.95; re-running the ternary simulation with those two values swapped would isolate whether CITED2 dominance is a structural feature of the complexes or an artifact of the calibration.
  • A potential practical consequence is that a molecule mimicking the N-terminal region of CITED2 could act as a competitive inhibitor of HIF-1α–TAZ1 binding, since the direct-binding pathway of CITED2 begins at that region.
  • The paper's emphasis on binding order suggests that in vivo, the timing of expression of CITED2 versus HIF-1α could determine which complex forms, even if both ligands are present at similar concentrations; this is an implicit biological consequence the paper does not spell out.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs coarse-grained, structure-based models of the binary TAZ1-HIF-1α and TAZ1-CITED2 complexes and a ternary TAZ1-HIF-1α-CITED2 system, using REMD simulations with weighted NMR contact maps and Debye-Hückel electrostatics. The binary models are calibrated so that both complexes reproduce the experimental 10 nM dissociation constant and low unbound helical content. On the ternary free-energy surface (Fig. 2), the CITED2-bound basin (CB) is reported as the lowest free-energy state, 1.91 kT below the HIF-1α-bound basin (HB), with an intermediate state (IS) and an unbound state (UB) at higher free energy. Kinetic simulations (Tab. 2) report faster direct binding of CITED2 (mean FPTon 0.286 ns vs 1.431 ns) and faster replacement of HIF-1α by CITED2 (60.758 ns vs 163.202 ns), with CITED2 reaching the bound state first in 177 of 200 runs. The paper concludes that CITED2 is thermodynamically and kinetically dominant in the ternary competition, consistent with NMR and fluorescence experiments (Berlow et al., Nature 2017), and analyzes binding-order and φ-value differences between direct and replacement pathways.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper provides a mechanistic, structure-based explanation for the experimentally observed dominance of CITED2 over HIF-1α in ternary competition with TAZ1, including a concrete intermediate state and distinct binding orders for direct and replacement pathways. Strengths of the study are its explicit use of the full NMR ensembles to build weighted contact maps, calibration to two independent experimental observables (Kd and helical content), direct comparison of simulated φ values with experimental values for HIF-1α, and the clear mapping of thermodynamic basins and kinetic pathways on a two-dimensional free-energy surface. The qualitative agreement with the experimental competition data is encouraging and the pathway analysis generates falsifiable predictions about which ligand regions are most important in each replacement process. The main weakness is that the ternary ranking is computed at a single hand-tuned point in parameter space, with no sensitivity or uncertainty analysis, so the quantitative robustness of the 1.91 kT gap and the kinetic ratios is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Fig. 2; SI Section 1.2, Eq. S3, Fig. S8] The central thermodynamic claim, that CB is 1.91 kT lower than HB in the ternary system, is computed with a single parameter set βH=1.1 and βC=0.95, tuned so that the two binary complexes each match the experimental Kd of about 10 nM. Matching two binary binding free energies does not constrain the ternary free-energy balance between two partially overlapping binding sites, and many (βH, βC) pairs near the fitted values would also reproduce the binary data. The paper does not test whether the CB-over-HB ordering survives variations in βH and βC, in the weighted contact-map construction, or in the hinge-region assignments, and no bootstrap or block-averaging uncertainty is given for the basin free energies. Since the entire conclusion that CITED2 dominates thermodynamically rests on this gap, please provide a sensitivity analysis (for example, re-computing the ternary free-energy surface over the βH ranges shown in Fig. S8 and over the βC ranges) and report the uncertainty of the CB-HB free-energy difference, or state explicitly why the ordering is structurally robust.
  2. [Table 1, Section 2.2] The simulated ternary Kd values (UB to HB 62.8 nM; UB to CB 1.38 nM) differ from the experimental apparent Kd values (900 nM and 0.2 nM) by factors of roughly 14 and 7 in opposite directions, and the Table 1 caption concedes that the simulated and experimental values are not directly comparable because of different calculation methods. The paper nevertheless states that the results are 'consistent with the tendency of experimental apparent Kd.' This comparison would be more convincing if the authors quantified the expected systematic offset of the model (e.g., from the effective simulation concentration, neglect of explicit solvent, or the coarse-grained energy function) and demonstrated that the sign and order of magnitude of the discrepancies are consistent with that offset, rather than treating the trend alone as validation. At minimum, the paper should avoid implying quantitative agreement that the reported numbers do not support.
  3. [Section 2.3, Table 2 and Fig. 4] The kinetic dominance claim is based on mean first-passage times (0.286 ns vs 1.431 ns for direct binding; 60.758 ns vs 163.202 ns for replacement) obtained from 200 trajectories per state, but no standard errors, confidence intervals, or distribution statistics are reported. The replacement times in particular are described as including many unsuccessful binding attempts, which suggests broad distributions and possibly large sampling uncertainty; the ratio 60.758/163.202 could be sensitive to a few outlier trajectories. Please report the standard error of the mean (or equivalent uncertainty) for each FPTon value and the 177/23 split, and state whether the observed differences are statistically significant under a suitable resampling test.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'the simulations prove the dominant position' is too strong for a coarse-grained model with calibrated parameters; 'suggest' or 'indicate' would be more accurate and would better match the exploratory nature of the study.
  2. [SI Section 1.2] In the sentence beginning 'In the experiment, the isolate HIF-1α or CITED2...', 'isolate' should be 'isolated'.
  3. [Section 2.3, Fig. 4 caption and text] There is a typo 'The mean FPTon of of each possible pathway'; 'of of' should be 'of'. Also, in Table 2 the header row repeats 'mean FPTon' under both 'Direct binding process' and 'Replacing process'; this is redundant but not confusing.
  4. [Section 2.4, Fig. S5B] The comparison with experimental φ values is partial because only a few HIF-1α residues are labeled and no CITED2 experimental φ values are shown; the V825A discrepancy is discussed, but a brief statement of how many experimental points were compared and the overall agreement rate would help the reader judge the comparison.
  5. [SI Section 1.1, Eq. S1] The notation 'εDHVDebye−H ¨uckel' is typeset awkwardly; please define the symbol for the Debye-Hückel term explicitly and use a consistent notation in Eq. S1 and Eq. S2.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Binary Kd agreement is a fitted input, while the central ternary CB-over-HB ranking and kinetics are emergent predictions; the circularity is real but limited.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1, Table 1, and SI Section 1.2 (Eq. S4, Fig. S8)]
    "Then the strengths of inter-chain interactions between TAZ1 and HIF-1α as well as between TAZ1 and CITED2 were adapted according to the experimental dissociation constant (Kd about 10 nM for both TAZ1-HIF-1α and TAZ1-CITED2). In our model, both TAZ1-HIF-1α and TAZ1-CITED2 complexes with inter-molecular interaction strengths of 1.10 and 0.95 have similar affinities with the experiments. The strengths of inter-molecular interactions (βH and βC) were tuned by performing a series of REMD simulations on TAZ1-HIF-1α and TAZ1-CITED2 complexes, respectively."

    The 'Simu. Kd' values in Table 1 for the binary systems (2.515 and 2.465 nM) are not independent predictions: βH=1.1 and βC=0.95 were specifically selected so that the binary binding free energy reproduces the experimental Kd ≈ 10 nM, using Eq. S4 and the calibration curves in Fig. S8. Reporting these simulated Kd values as evidence of agreement with experiment is therefore a restatement of the calibration target, not a model test. This circularity is confined to the binary entries; the ternary CB/HB ordering is computed from the same Hamiltonian but is not directly fixed by the two fitted Kd values, so the central ternary claim retains independent content.

full rationale

The paper's central claim -- that CITED2 dominates HIF-1α both thermodynamically and kinetically in the ternary TAZ1-HIF-1α-CITED2 system -- is not circular in its main derivation. The ternary free-energy surface (Fig. 2) and the kinetic first-passage times (Fig. 4, Table 2) are emergent outputs of a structure-based model whose only fitted parameters are the binary inter-molecular strengths βH and βC, tuned to the experimental binary Kd ≈ 10 nM. Matching two binary affinities does not by construction determine the 1.91 kT gap between CB and HB on the ternary surface; the ternary ordering is a genuine prediction, and it is consistent with the externally reported apparent Kd ordering from the same experimental reference. The kinetic rates, pathway probabilities, contact maps, and φ values are also not fitted targets. The one clear circular step is the presentation of the binary 'Simu. Kd' values as if they were predicted results when they are in fact the calibrated outputs of the parameter-selection procedure. This is a real but secondary circularity. The lack of sensitivity analysis over βH, βC, and the weighted contact map is a robustness concern rather than a circularity, because the paper does not claim that the ternary ranking is proved by the binary fit alone. Overall, the derivation is largely self-contained against external benchmarks, with a moderate circularity burden limited to the binary affinity check.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a coarse-grained structure-based model whose key interaction strengths are fitted to experiment, on several domain assumptions about the adequacy of the model, and on the chosen simulation setup. No new physical entities are introduced. The paper's own text shows the calibration in SI Section 1.2 and the hinge scaling in the same section.

free parameters (8)
  • βH, inter-molecular contact strength for TAZ1-HIF-1α = 1.1
    Tuned so the binary TAZ1-HIF-1α binding free energy matches the experimental Kd of about 10 nM; this directly sets the starting balance for the ternary competition.
  • βC, inter-molecular contact strength for TAZ1-CITED2 = 0.95
    Tuned so the binary TAZ1-CITED2 binding free energy matches the experimental Kd of about 10 nM.
  • αH, αC, intra-molecular contact strengths of the two ligands = not specified numerically
    Tuned so unbound helical content stays below 10%, matching the experimental random-coil description.
  • kφ, extra dihedral bias for ligand helicity = 1.0 or 0.9
    Empirically adjusted to reproduce the roughly 10% helical content of isolated HIF-1α and CITED2.
  • ΓDH, Debye-Hückel energy scale = 0.535
    Chosen so the electrostatic interaction at 0.5 nm matches the native contact energy; enters all charge interactions.
  • εh, hinge-region scaling factor = 0.01
    Weakened angle and dihedral terms in hinge regions to increase flexibility, which affects folding and binding energetics.
  • Simulation temperature (reduced units) = 0.99
    Calibrated so TAZ1 with three Zn2+ ions is stable at room temperature; all free energies are evaluated at this temperature.
  • Simulation sphere radius and effective concentration = 6 nm and 1.83 mM
    The conversion from populations to Kd in Eq. S4 depends on this concentration, which is a simulation convenience rather than a physical constant.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Native contact topology from NMR structures 1L8C and 1R8U determines the relevant binding energy landscape.
    This is the foundation of the structure-based model in Methods; non-native interactions beyond excluded volume and Debye-Hückel electrostatics are not represented.
  • domain assumption One-bead-per-residue Cα coarse graining with implicit solvent can capture the relative binding thermodynamics and kinetics of these IDP complexes.
    Central to all simulations; no all-atom validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Weighted contact maps built from 20 NMR conformers with the CSU algorithm adequately represent structural heterogeneity.
    The weighting by frequency of occurrence is used for all native contact energy terms in SI Section 1.1.
  • domain assumption The fraction of native inter-molecular contacts Qinter is a sufficient reaction coordinate for defining states, transition states, and phi values.
    Free energy surfaces and phi values are projected onto Qinter, with the transition state defined as Qinter between 0.03 and 0.1.
  • domain assumption Debye-Hückel electrostatics with point charges on Cα atoms approximates the electrostatic environment.
    Used for all charged residues in Eq. S2; no comparison against explicit-solvent electrostatics is given.
  • domain assumption The spherical simulation box with a 6 nm radius and a restraining potential gives a meaningful effective concentration for Kd calculations.
    Eq. S4 converts simulated populations to Kd using this concentration; different box choices would shift the absolute Kd values.
  • domain assumption REMD trajectories are converged after about 150 ns per replica based on the fraction of native contacts Q reaching equilibrium.
    Convergence is assessed only through the Q time series in Fig. S9, not through block error analysis or multiple independent REMD repeats.
  • domain assumption A mutation's effect in the phi value calculation is captured by removing the native contacts involving the mutated residue.
    This is the standard assumption behind Eq. S5; the paper itself notes that the assumption fails to reproduce the experimental V825A phi value.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigations of the Underlying Mechanisms of HIF-1{\alpha} and CITED2 Binding to TAZ1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PT32YOI5

@misc{pith2026190900911,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigations of the Underlying Mechanisms of HIF-1\alpha and CITED2 Binding to TAZ1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PT32YOI5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00911}
}
read the original abstract

The TAZ1 domain of CREB binding protein is crucial for transcriptional regulation and recognizes multiple targets. The interactions between TAZ1 and its specific targets are related to the cellular hypoxic negative feedback regulation. Previous experiments reported that one of the TAZ1 targets CITED2 is an efficient competitor of another target HIF-1{\alpha}. Here by developing the structure-based models of TAZ1 complexes we have uncovered the underlying mechanisms of the competitions between HIF-1{\alpha} and CITED2 binding to TAZ1. Our results are consistent with the experimental hypothesis on the competition mechanisms and the apparent affinity. In addition, the simulations prove the dominant position of forming TAZ1-CITED2 complex in both thermodynamics and kinetics. For thermodynamics, TAZ1-CITED2 is the lowest basin located on the free energy surface of binding in the ternary system. For kinetics, the results suggest that CITED2 binds to TAZ1 faster than HIF-1{\alpha}. Besides, the analysis of contact map and f values in this study will be helpful for further experiments on TAZ1 systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. A. Dames, M. Martinez-Yamout, R. N. De Guzman, H. J. Dyson and P. E. Wright,Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. , 2002, 99, 5271–5276

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    R. N. De Guzman, M. A. Martinez-Yamout, H. J. Dyson and P. E. Wright, J. Biol. Chem., 2004, 279, 3042–3049

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    J. K. Noel, P. C. Whitford, K. Y . Sanbonmatsu and J. N. Onuchic,Nucleic Acids Res., 2010, 38, W657–W661

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Clementi, H

    C. Clementi, H. Nymeyer and J. N. Onuchic, J. Mol. Biol., 2000, 298, 937–953

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    J. K. Noel, P. C. Whitford and J. N. Onuchic, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2012, 116, 8692–8702

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Lammert, A

    H. Lammert, A. Schug and J. N. Onuchic, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. , 2009, 77, 881–891

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Sobolev, A

    V . Sobolev, A. Sorokine, J. Prilusky, E. E. Abola and M. Edelman, Bioinformatics, 1999, 15, 327–332

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    W.-T. Chu, X. Chu and J. Wang, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. , 2017, 114, E7959–E7968

    work page 2017

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Y . Levy, J. N. Onuchic and P. G. Wolynes,J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2007, 129, 738–739

    2007

  2. [10]

    Azia and Y

    A. Azia and Y . Levy,J. Mol. Biol., 2009, 393, 527–542

    2009

  3. [11]

    Givaty and Y

    O. Givaty and Y . Levy,J. Mol. Biol., 2009, 385, 1087–1097. 5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 4.5 7.5 10.5 13.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.5 4.5 7.5 10.5 13.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 3 5 7 9 0.0 0.2 0...

    2009

  4. [12]

    X. Chu, Y . Wang, L. Gan, Y . Bai, W. Han, E. Wang, J. Wanget al., PLoS Comput. Biol. , 2012, 8, e1002608

    2012

  5. [13]

    The secondary structures as well as the LPQL/LPEL motif are labeled

    in HIC pathway (D). The secondary structures as well as the LPQL/LPEL motif are labeled. 10 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Heat capacity Temperature 3 Zn2+ 2 Zn2+ 1 Zn2+ 0 Zn2+ Fig. S7 The heat capacity curves of TAZ1 with 3 Zn 2+ (red), 2 Zn2+ (...

    2000

  6. [14]

    Okazaki, N

    K.-i. Okazaki, N. Koga, S. Takada, J. N. Onuchic and P. G. Wolynes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2006, 103, 11844–11849

    2006

  7. [15]

    Y . Wang, L. Gan, E. Wang and J. Wang,J. Chem. Theory Comput., 2012, 9, 84–95

    2012

  8. [16]

    S. M. Law, J. K. Gagnon, A. K. Mapp and C. L. Brooks, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. , 2014, 111, 12067–12072

    2014

  9. [17]

    De Sancho and R

    D. De Sancho and R. B. Best, Mol. Biosyst., 2012, 8, 256–267

    2012

  10. [18]

    Ganguly and J

    D. Ganguly and J. Chen, Proteins: Structure, Function, Bioinformatics, 2011, 79, 1251–1266

    2011

  11. [19]

    J. Wang, Y . Wang, X. Chu, S. J. Hagen, W. Han and E. Wang, PLoS Comput. Biol. , 2011, 7, e1001118

    2011

  12. [20]

    Chu and J

    W.-T. Chu and J. Wang, ACS Cent. Sci., 2018, 4, 1015–1022

    2018

  13. [21]

    R. B. Berlow, H. J. Dyson and P. E. Wright, Nature, 2017, 543, 447

    2017

  14. [22]

    G. A. Tribello, M. Bonomi, D. Branduardi, C. Camilloni and G. Bussi,Comput. Phys. Commun., 2014, 185, 604–613

    2014

  15. [23]

    B. Hess, C. Kutzner, D. Van Der Spoel and E. Lindahl, J. Chem. Theory Comput. , 2008, 4, 435–447

    2008

  16. [24]

    Kumar, J

    S. Kumar, J. M. Rosenberg, D. Bouzida, R. H. Swendsen and P. A. Kollman, J. Comput. Chem., 1995, 16, 1339–1350. 12

    1995

  17. [25]

    Kumar, J

    S. Kumar, J. M. Rosenberg, D. Bouzida, R. H. Swendsen and P. A. Kollman, J. Comput. Chem., 1992, 13, 1011–1021

    1992

  18. [26]

    Lindstr ¨om, E

    I. Lindstr ¨om, E. Andersson and J. Dogan, Sci. Rep., 2018, 8, 7872. 13

    2018

  19. [27]

    Y . Levy, S. S. Cho, J. N. Onuchic and P. G. Wolynes,J. Mol. Biol., 2005, 346, 1121–1145

    2005

  20. [269]

    The experimentalφ values (in ref26) are shown in dots

    in UC pathway (D). The experimentalφ values (in ref26) are shown in dots. The secondary structures as well as the LPQL/LPEL motif are labeled. 9 α1 α2 α3 α4 α1 α2 α3 α4 αA αB αCLPQL αA LPEL φ valueφ value Residue number TAZ1 Residue number TAZ1 Residue number HIF-1α Residue nu...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.