The conformational and mutational landscape of the ubiquitin-like marker for autophagosome formation in cancer

References

• Gatica D, Lahiri V, Klionsky DJ. Cargo recognition and degradation by selective autophagy. Nat Cell Biol [Internet]. 2018;20:233–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galluzzi L, Baehrecke EH, Ballabio A, et al. Molecular definitions of autophagy and related processes. Embo J [Internet]. 2017;36:1811–1836. Available from: http://emboj.embopress.org/lookup/
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parzych KR, Klionsky DJ. An overview of autophagy: morphology, mechanism, and regulation. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2013;20:460–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaffagnini G, Martens S. Mechanisms of selective autophagy. J Mol Biol [Internet]. 2016;428:1714–1724.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaaf MBE, Keulers TG, Vooijs MA, et al. LC3/GABARAP family proteins: autophagy-(un)related functions. Faseb J. 2016;30:3961–3978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizushima N, Yoshimori T, Levine B. Methods in mammalian autophagy research. Cell [Internet]. 2010;140:313–326. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20144757%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC2852113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy. Autophagy. 2016;12:1–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kabeya Y, Mizushima N, Ueno T, et al. LC3, a mammalian homologue of yeast Apg8p, is localized in autophagosome membranes after processing. Embo J [Internet]. 2000;19:5720–5728. Available from: http://emboj.embopress.org/
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sora V, Kumar M, Maiani E, et al. Structure and dynamics in the ATG8 family from experimental to computational techniques.Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2020;8:1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Wild P, McEwan DG, Dikic I. The LC3 interactome at a glance. J Cell Sci. 2014;127:3–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klionsky DJ, Schulman BA. Dynamic regulation of macroautophagy by distinctive ubiquitin-like proteins. Nat Struct Mol Biol [Internet]. 2014;21:336–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alemu EA, Lamark T, Torgersen KM, et al. ATG8 family proteins act as scaffolds for assembly of the ULK complex: sequence requirements for LC3-interacting region (LIR) motifs. J Biol Chem. 2012;287:39275–39290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noda NN, Kumeta H, Nakatogawa H, et al. Structural basis of target recognition by Atg8/LC3 during selective autophagy. Genes Cells. 2008;13:1211–1218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pankiv S, Clausen TH, Lamark T, et al. p62/SQSTM1 binds directly to Atg8/LC3 to facilitate degradation of ubiquitinated protein aggregates by autophagy*[S]. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:24131–24145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birgisdottir AB, Lamark T, Johansen T. The LIR motif - crucial for selective autophagy. J Cell Sci [Internet]. 2013;126:3552–3562. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3744024&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirth M, Zhang W, Razi M, et al. Molecular determinants regulating selective binding of autophagy adapters and receptors to ATG8 proteins. Nat Commun [Internet]. 2019;10:2055. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10059-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holdgaard SG, Cianfanelli V, Pupo E, et al. Selective autophagy maintains centrosome integrity and accurate mitosis by turnover of centriolar satellites. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Rita A, Peschiaroli A, D′Acunzo P, et al. HUWE1 E3 ligase promotes PINK1/PARKIN-independent mitophagy by regulating AMBRA1 activation via IKKα. Nat Commun [Internet]. 2018;9:3755. [cited 2019 Feb 28]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05722-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizushima N. A brief history of autophagy from cell biology to physiology and disease. Nat Cell Biol [Internet]. 2018;20:521–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mancias JD, Kimmelman AC. Mechanisms of selective autophagy in normal physiology and cancer. J Mol Biol [Internet]. 2016;428:1659–1680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rybstein MD, Bravo-San Pedro JM, Kroemer G, et al. The autophagic network and cancer. Nat Cell Biol [Internet]. 2018;20:243–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mah LY, Ryan KM. Autophagy and cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol [Internet]. 2012;4:a008821. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16874083
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White E, DiPaola RS. The double-edged sword of autophagy modulation in cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:5308–5316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorburn A. Autophagy and its effects: making sense of double-edged swords. PLoS Biol. 2014;12:10–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White E. Deconvoluting the context-dependent role for autophagy in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer [Internet]. 2012. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3262.
   Google Scholar
• Kimmelman AC. The dynamic nature of autophagy in cancer. Genes Dev. 2011;25:1999–2010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh SS, Vats S, Chia AYQ, et al. Dual role of autophagy in hallmarks of cancer. Oncogene [Internet]. 2018;37:1142–1158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazova R, Camp RL, Klump V, et al. Punctate LC3B expression is a common feature of solid tumors and associated with proliferation, metastasis, and poor outcome. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:370–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He Y, Zhao X, Subahan NR, et al. The prognostic value of autophagy-related markers beclin-1 and microtubule-associated protein light chain 3B in cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tumour Biol [Internet]. 2014;35:7317–7326. [cited 2019 May 9]. Available from:
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tang JY, Hsi E, Huang YC, et al. High LC3 expression correlates with poor survival in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Hum Pathol [Internet]. 2013;44:2558–2562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao H, Yang M, Zhao J, et al. High expression of LC3B is associated with progression and poor outcome in triple-negative breast cancer. Med Oncol. 2013;30: 475.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu DH, Jia CC, Chen J, et al. Autophagic LC3B overexpression correlates with malignant progression and predicts a poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Tumor Biol. 2014;35:12225–12233.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Towers CG, Thorburn A. Therapeutic targeting of autophagy. EBioMedicine [Internet]. 2016;14:15–23. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352396416304959
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuta GC, Gilad Y, Gershoni M, et al. A cancer associated somatic mutation in LC3B attenuates its binding to E1-like ATG7 protein and subsequent lipidation. Autophagy [Internet]. 2018;15548627.2018.1525476. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papaleo E. Integrating atomistic molecular dynamics simulations, experiments, and network analysis to study protein dynamics: strength in unity. Front Mol Biosci [Internet]. 2015;2:1–6. [cited 2015 Oct 8]. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4445042&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindorff-Larsen K, Maragakis P, Piana S, et al. Systematic validation of protein force fields against experimental data. PLoS One [Internet]. 2012;7:e32131. [cited 2015 Aug 27]. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3285199&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange OF, van der Spoel D, de Groot BL. Scrutinizing molecular mechanics force fields on the submicrosecond timescale with NMR data. Biophys J [Internet]. 2010;99:647–655. [cited 2015 Jul 8]. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2905107&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowman GR. Accurately modeling nanosecond protein dynamics requires at least microseconds of simulation. J Comput Chem. 2016;37:558–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang J, Rauscher S, Nawrocki G, et al. CHARMM36m: an improved force field for folded and intrinsically disordered proteins. Nat Methods [Internet]. 2017;14:71–73. [cited 2018 Apr 24]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27819658
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martín-García F, Papaleo E, Gomez-Puertas P, et al. Comparing molecular dynamics force fields in the essential subspace. PLoS One [Internet]. 2015;10:e0121114. [cited 2015 Oct 17]. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4374674&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maragakis P, Lindorff-Larsen K, Eastwood MP, et al. Microsecond molecular dynamics simulation shows effect of slow loop dynamics on backbone amide order parameters of proteins. J Phys Chem B [Internet]. 2008;112:6155–6158. [cited 2015 Oct 17]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sultan MM, Wayment-Steele HK, Pande VS. Transferable Neural Networks for Enhanced Sampling of Protein Dynamics. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2018; 14(4):1887–1894
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Showalter SA, Brüschweiler R. Validation of molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules using NMR spin relaxation as benchmarks: application to the AMBER99SB force field. J Chem Theory Comput [Internet]. 2007;3:961–975. [cited 2019 May 10]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long D, Li DW, Walter KFA, et al. Toward a predictive understanding of slow methyl group dynamics in proteins. Biophys J. 2011;101:910–915.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindorff-Larsen K, Maragakis P, Piana S, et al. Picosecond to millisecond structural dynamics in human ubiquitin. J Phys Chem B [Internet]. 2016;120:8313–8320. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li DW, Brüschweiler R. Certification of molecular dynamics trajectories with NMR chemical shifts. J Phys Chem Lett. 2010;1:246–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berjanskii M, Zhou J, Liang Y, et al. Resolution-by-proxy: a simple measure for assessing and comparing the overall quality of NMR protein structures. J Biomol NMR [Internet]. 2012;53:167–180. [cited 2016 Jul 13]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22678091
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kouno T, Mizuguchi M, Tanidal I, et al. Solution structure of microtubule-associated protein light chain 3 and identification of its functional subdomains. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:24610–24617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li D, Brüschweiler R. PPM-One: A static protein structure based chemical shift predictor. J Biomol NMR [Internet]. 2015;62:403–409. [cited 2016 Jul 13]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiberti M, Papaleo E, Bengtsen T, et al. ENCORE: software for quantitative ensemble comparison. de Groot BL, editor. PLoS Comput Biol [Internet]. 2015;11:e1004415. [cited 2019 May 9]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craveur P, Joseph AP, Esque J, et al. Protein flexibility in the light of structural alphabets. Front Mol Biosci. 2015;2:1–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobayashi Y, Yang S, Nykamp K, et al. Pathogenic variant burden in the ExAC database: an empirical approach to evaluating population data for clinical variant interpretation. Genome Med. 2017;9:1–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis NM, Rothstein JH, Pejaver V, et al. REVEL: an ensemble method for predicting the pathogenicity of rare missense variants. Am J Hum Genet [Internet]. 2016;99:877–885. [cited 2019 Mar 6]. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002929716303706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang H, Cheng D, Liu W, et al. Protein kinase C inhibits autophagy and phosphorylates LC3. Biochem Biophys Res Commun [Internet]. 2010;395:471–476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson DS, Hansen M. LC3 is a novel substrate for the mammalian Hippo kinases, STK3/STK4. Autophagy. 2015;11:856–857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson DS, Jariwala JS, Anderson E, et al. Phosphorylation of LC3 by the hippo kinases STK3/STK4 is essential for autophagy. Mol Cell [Internet]. 2015;57:55–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang R, Xu Y, Lippincott-schwartz J, et al. Deacetylation of nuclear LC3 drives autophagy initiation under starvation. Mol Cell [Internet]. 2015;57:456–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner SA, Beli P, Weinert BT, et al. A proteome-wide, quantitative survey of in vivo ubiquitylation sites reveals widespread regulatory roles. Mol Cell Proteomics [Internet]. 2011;10:M111.013284. Available from:
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang R, Liu W. Identifying an essential role of nuclear LC3 for autophagy. Autophagy [Internet]. 2015;11:852–853. [cited 2019 May 10]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song T, Su H, Yin W, et al. Acetylation modulates LC3 stability and cargo recognition. FEBS Lett. 2019;593:414–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue Y, Ren J, Gao X, et al. GPS 2.0, a tool to predict kinase-specific phosphorylation sites in hierarchy. Mol Cell Proteomics [Internet]. 2008;7:1598–1608. [cited 2019 May 10]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blom N, Sicheritz-Pontén T, Gupta R, et al. Prediction of post-translational glycosylation and phosphorylation of proteins from the amino acid sequence. Proteomics. 2004;4:1633–1649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satoo K, Noda NN, Kumeta H, et al. The structure of Atg4B-LC3 complex reveals the mechanism of LC3 processing and delipidation during autophagy. Embo J [Internet]. 2009;28:1341–1350. [cited 2019 May 10]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygaard M, Terkelsen T, Olsen AV, et al. The mutational landscape of the oncogenic MZF1 SCAN domain in cancer. Front Mol Biosci. 2016;3:1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riera C, Lois S, de la Cruz X. Prediction of pathological mutations in proteins: the challenge of integrating sequence conservation and structure stability principles. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci [Internet]. 2014;4:249–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein A, Fowler DM, Hartmann-Petersen R, et al. Biophysical and mechanistic models for disease-causing protein variants. Trends Biochem Sci [Internet]. 2019;1–14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2019.01.003.
   Google Scholar
• Guerois R, Nielsen JE, Serrano L. Predicting changes in the stability of proteins and protein complexes: A study of more than 1000 mutations. J Mol Biol. 2002;320:369–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiberti M, Terkelsen T, Canter Cremers T, et al. MutateX: an automated pipeline for in-silico saturation mutagenesis of protein structures and structural ensembles. bioRxiv 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Mercadante D, Gräter F, Daday C. CONAN: a tool to decode dynamical information from molecular interaction maps. Biophys J. 2018;114:1267–1273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotlyar M, Pastrello C, Malik Z, et al. IID 2018 update: context-specific physical protein-protein interactions in human, model organisms and domesticated species. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D581–D589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacomin AC, Samavedam S, Promponas V, et al. iLIR database: A web resource for LIR motif-containing proteins in eukaryotes. Autophagy [Internet]. 2016;12:1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suzuki H, Tabata K, Morita E, et al. Structural basis of the autophagy-related LC3/Atg13 LIR complex: recognition and interaction mechanism. Structure [Internet]. 2014;22:47–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogov VV, Stolz A, Ravichandran AC, et al. Structural and functional analysis of the GABARAP interaction motif (GIM). EMBO Rep [Internet]. 2017;18:1382–1396. [cited 2018 Dec 20]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuang Y, Ma K, Zhou C, et al. Structural basis for the phosphorylation of FUNDC1 LIR as a molecular switch of mitophagy. Autophagy [Internet]. 2016;12:1–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiberti M, Invernizzi G, Lambrughi M, et al. PyInteraph : a framework for the analysis of interaction networks in structural ensembles of proteins. J Chem Inf Model. 2014;54:1537–1551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viloria JS, Allega MF, Lambrughi M, et al. An optimal distance cutoff for contact-based protein structure networks using side-chain centers of mass. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jónsdóttir LB, Ellertsson B, Invernizzi G, et al. The role of salt bridges on the temperature adaptation of aqualysin I, a thermostable subtilisin-like proteinase. Biochim Biophys Acta - Proteins Proteomics [Internet]. 2014;1844:2174–2181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkin V, Lamark T, Sou YS, et al. A role for NBR1 in autophagosomal degradation of ubiquitinated substrates. Mol Cell. 2009;33:505–516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ichimura Y, Kumanomidou T, Sou YS, et al. Structural basis for sorting mechanism of p62 in selective autophagy. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:22847–22857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsvik HL, Lamark T, Takagi K, et al. FYCO1 contains a C-terminally extended, LC3A/B-preferring LC3-interacting region (LIR) motif required for efficient maturation of autophagosomes during basal autophagy. J Biol Chem. 2015;290:29361–29374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thukral L, Sengupta D, Ramkumar A, et al. The molecular mechanism underlying recruitment and insertion of lipid-anchored LC3 protein into membranes. Biophys J [Internet]. 2015;109:2067–2078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weidberg H, Shpilka T, Shvets E, et al. LC3 and GATE-16 N termini mediate membrane fusion processes required for autophagosome biogenesis. Dev Cell [Internet]. 2011;20:444–454. [cited 2020 Jan 9]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen SV, Stein A, Dinitzen AB, et al. Predicting the impact of Lynch syndrome-causing missense mutations from structural calculations. Nichols KE, editor. PLOS Genet [Internet]. 2017;13:e1006739. [cited 2018 Apr 8]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheller R, Stein A, Nielsen SV, et al. Toward mechanistic models for genotype-phenotype correlations in phenylketonuria using protein stability calculations. Hum Mutat [Internet]. 2019;40(4):444–457. [cited 2019 Mar 6]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30648773
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu C, Ma H, Wu J, et al. Arginine68 is an essential residue for the C-terminal cleavage of human Atg8 family proteins. BMC Cell Biol [Internet]. 2013;14:27. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3686597&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa JR, Prak K, Aldous S, et al. Autophagy gene expression profiling identifies a defective microtubule-associated protein light chain 3A mutant in cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7:41203–41216.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Behrends C, Sowa ME, Gygi SP, et al. Network organization of the human autophagy system. Nature [Internet]. 2010;466:68–76. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20562859%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC2901998
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraft LJ, Nguyen TA, Vogel SS, et al. Size, stoichiometry, and organization of soluble LC3-associated complexes. Autophagy. 2014;10:861–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanida I, Ueno T, Kominami E. Human light chain 3/MAP1LC3B Is cleaved at its carboxyl-terminal Met 121 to expose Gly120 for lipidation and targeting to autophagosomal membranes. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:47704–47710.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dou Z, Xu C, Donahue G, et al. Autophagy mediates degradation of nuclear lamina. Nature [Internet]. 2015;527:105–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lv M, Wang C, Li F, et al. Structural insights into the recognition of phosphorylated FUNDC1 by LC3B in mitophagy. Protein & Cell [Internet]. 2017 8:25–38 Available from:
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogov VV, Suzuki H, Marinković M, et al. Phosphorylation of the mitochondrial autophagy receptor Nix enhances its interaction with LC3 proteins. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia R, Bonifacino JS. Negative regulation of autophagy by uba6-birc6–mediated ubiquitination of lc3. Elife. 2019;8:1–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess B, Kutzner C, van der Spoel D, et al. GROMACS 4: algorithms for highly efficient, load-balanced, and scalable molecular simulation. J Chem Theory Comput. 2008;4:435–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abraham MJ, Murtola T, Schulz R, et al. GROMACS: high performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX [Internet]. 2015;2:19–25. [cited 2019 Mar 6]. Available from:
   Google Scholar
• Maier JA, Martinez C, Kasavajhala K, et al. ff14SB: improving the accuracy of protein side chain and backbone parameters from ff99SB. J Chem Theory Comput. 2015;11:3696–3713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li DW, Brüschweiler R. NMR-based protein potentials. Angew Chem Int Educ. 2010;49:6778–6780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindorff-Larsen K, Piana S, Palmo K, et al. Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field. Proteins [Internet]. 2010;78:1950–1958. [cited 2016 Jul 12]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20408171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best RB, De Sancho D, Mittal J. Residue-specific α-helix propensities from molecular simulation. Biophys J [Internet]. 2012;102:1462–1467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best RB, Hummer G. Optimized molecular dynamics force fields applied to the helix-coil transition of polypeptides. J Phys Chem B [Internet]. 2009;113:9004–9015. [cited 2015 Aug 9]. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3115786&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robustelli P, Piana S, Shaw DE. Developing a molecular dynamics force field for both folded and disordered protein states. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:E4758–E4766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou CY, Jiang F, Wu YD. Residue-specific force field based on protein coil library. RSFF2: modification of AMBER ff99SB. J Phys Chem B. 2015;119:1035–1047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li S, Elcock AH. Residue-Specific Force Field (RSFF2) improves the modeling of conformational behavior of peptides and proteins. J Phys Chem Lett. 2015;6:2127–2133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piana S, Lindorff-Larsen K, Shaw DE. How robust are protein folding simulations with respect to force field parameterization? Biophys J. 2011;100:L47–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjelkmar P, Larsson P, Cuendet MA, et al. Implementation of the CHARMM force field in GROMACS: analysis of protein stability effects from correction Maps, virtual interaction sites, and water models. J Chem Theory Comput [Internet]. 2010;6:459–466. [cited 2016 Jul 12]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang F, Zhou C-Y, Wu Y-D. Residue-specific force field based on the protein coil library. RSFF1: modification of OPLS-AA/L. J Phys Chem B [Internet]. 2014;118:6983–6998. [cited 2016 Jul 12]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24815738
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKerell AD, Bashford D, Dunbrack RL, et al. All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J Phys Chem B. 1998;102:3586–3616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD, et al. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys. 1983;79:926.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horn HW, Swope WC, Pitera JW, et al. Development of an improved four-site water model for biomolecular simulations: TIP4P-Ew. J Chem Phys [Internet]. 2004;120:9665–9678. [cited 2016 Jul 12]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15267980
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daura X, Gademann K, Jaun B, et al. Peptide folding: when simulation meets experiment. Angew Chem Int Educ. 1999;38:236–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amadei A, Linssen AB, Berendsen HJ. Essential dynamics of proteins. Proteins. 1993;17:412–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaud-Agrawal N, Denning EJ, Woolf TB, et al. MDAnalysis: a toolkit for the analysis of molecular dynamics simulations. J Comput Chem. 2011;32:2319–2327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frey BJ, Dueck D. Clustering by passing messages between data points. Science. 2007; 315:972–976.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shieh AD, Hashimoto TB, Airoldi EM. Tree preserving embedding. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 2011;108:16916–16921. [cited 2019 May 10]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandini A, Fornili A, Kleinjung J, et al. Structural alphabets derived from attractors in conformational space. BMC Bioinformatics [Internet]. 2010;11:97. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandini A, Fornili A, Fraternali F, et al. GSATools: analysis of allosteric communication and functional local motions using a structural alphabet. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:2053–2055.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandini A, Fornili A. Using local states to drive the sampling of global conformations in proteins. J Chem Theory Comput. 2016;12:1368–1379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papaleo E, Renzetti G, Tiberti M. Mechanisms of intramolecular communication in a hyperthermophilic acylaminoacyl peptidase: a molecular dynamics investigation. Fraternali F, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2012;7:e35686. [cited 2016 Jul 13]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22558199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasi M, Tiberti M, Arrigoni A, et al. xPyder: a PyMOL plugin to analyze coupled residues and their networks in protein structures. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;279:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Cerami E, Gao J, Dogrusoz U, et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2012;2:401–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tate JG, Bamford S, Jubb HC, et al. COSMIC: the catalogue of somatic mutations in cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(D1):D941–D947.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornbeck PV, Zhang B, Murray B, et al. PhosphoSitePlus, 2014: mutations, PTMs and recalibrations. Nucleic Acids Res [Internet]. 2015;43:D512–D520. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Roey K, Dinkel H, Weatheritt RJ, et al. The switches.ELM resource: a compendium of conditional regulatory interaction interfaces. Sci Signal [Internet]. 2013;6:rs7. [cited 2016 Aug 19]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23550212
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xin J, Mark A, Afrasiabi C, et al. High-performance web services for querying gene and variant annotation. Genome Biol [Internet]. 2016;17:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Zhao T, Zhang Y, et al. Performance evaluation of pathogenicity-computation methods for missense variants. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:7793–7804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ovchinnikov S, Kamisetty H, Baker D. Robust and accurate prediction of residue–residue interactions across protein interfaces using evolutionary information. Elife [Internet]. 2014;3:1–21. Available from:
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crooks G, Hon G, Chandonia J, et al. WebLogo: a sequence logo generator. Genome Res [Internet]. 2004;14:1188–1190. Available from: ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/genomes/Bacteria
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eswar N, Webb B, Marti-Renom MA, et al. Comparative protein structure modeling using MODELLER. Curr Protoc Protein Sci. 2007;Chapter 2:Unit2.9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McEwan DG, Popovic D, Gubas A, et al. PLEKHM1 regulates autophagosome-lysosome fusion through HOPS complex and LC3/GABARAP proteins. Mol Cell [Internet]. 2015;57:39–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogov VV, Suzuki H, Fiskin E, et al. Structural basis for phosphorylation-triggered autophagic clearance of Salmonella. Biochem J [Internet]. 2013;454:459–466. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23805866
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tokuriki N, Stricher F, Schymkowitz J, et al. The stability effects of protein mutations appear to be universally distributed. J Mol Biol. 2007;369:1318–1332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Privalov PL. Stability of proteins small globular proteins. Adv Protein Chem. 1979;33:167–241.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fersht AR, Serrano L. Principles of protein stability derived from protein engineering experiments. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1993;3:75–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khorasanizadeh S, Peters ID, Roder H. Evidence for a three-state model of protein folding from kinetic analysis of ubiquitin variants with altered core residues. Nat Struct Biol [Internet]. 1996;3:193–205. [cited 2019 May 10]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8564547
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Park H, Bradley P, Greisen PJ, et al. Simultaneous optimization of biomolecular energy function on features from small molecules and macromolecules Hahnbeom. J Chem Theory Comput. 2016;12:6201–6212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow KA, Conchúir Ó, Thompson S, et al. Flex ddG: Rosetta ensemble-based estimation of changes in protein-protein binding affinity upon mutation. J Phys Chem B. 2018;122:5389–5399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marrink SJ, Risselada HJ, Yefimov S, et al. The MARTINI force field: coarse grained model for biomolecular simulations. J Phys Chem B [Internet]. 2007;111:7812–7824. [cited 2018 May 30]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monticelli L, Kandasamy SK, Periole X, et al. The MARTINI coarse-grained force field: extension to proteins. J Chem Theory Comput [Internet]. 2008;4:819–834. [cited 2020 Jan 13]. Available from:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson WT, Giddings TH, Taylor MP, et al. Subversion of cellular autophagosomal machinery by RNA viruses. PLoS Biol. 2005;3:0861–0871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar