✦ LIBER ✦

Ligand binding and nuclear receptor evolution

✍ Scribed by Hector Escriva; Franck Delaunay; Vincent Laudet

Book ID: 101362555
Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
Year: 2000
Tongue: English
Weight: 225 KB
Volume: 22
Category: Article
ISSN: 0265-9247
DOI: 10.1002/1521-1878(200008)22:8<717::aid-bies5>3.0.co;2-i

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES

The nuclear receptor ligand-binding doma

The nuclear receptor ligand-binding domain: structure and function

✍ Dino Moras; Hinrich Gronemeyer 📂 Article 📅 1998 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 823 KB

Dynamic Stabilization of Nuclear Recepto

Dynamic Stabilization of Nuclear Receptor Ligand Binding Domains by Hormone or Corepressor Binding

✍ Pavlos Pissios; Iphigenia Tzameli; Peter J. Kushner; David D. Moore 📂 Article 📅 2000 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 344 KB

Directed evolution of estrogen receptor

Directed evolution of estrogen receptor proteins with altered ligand-binding specificities

✍ Islam, K. M. D.; Dilcher, M.; Thurow, C.; Vock, C.; Krimmelbein, I. K.; Tietze, 📂 Article 📅 2009 🏛 Oxford University Press 🌐 English ⚖ 666 KB

Galanin receptor subtypes and ligand bin

Galanin receptor subtypes and ligand binding

✍ Anders Florén; Tiit Land; Ülo Langel 📂 Article 📅 2000 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 109 KB

Sequence, evolution and ligand binding p

Sequence, evolution and ligand binding properties of mammalian Duffy antigen/receptor for chemokines

✍ Christophe Tournamille; Antoine Blancher; Caroline Le Van Kim; Pierre Gane; PolA 📂 Article 📅 2004 🏛 Springer-Verlag 🌐 English ⚖ 591 KB

Field-based comparison of ligand and coa

Field-based comparison of ligand and coactivator binding sites of nuclear receptors

✍ Gerd Wohlfahrt; Julius Sipilä; Lars-Olof Pietilä 📂 Article 📅 2009 🏛 Wiley (John Wiley & Sons) 🌐 English ⚖ 477 KB

## Abstract A structure‐based comparison of the ligand‐binding domains of 35 nuclear receptors from five different subfamilies is presented. Their ligand and coactivator binding sites are characterized using knowledge‐based contact preference fields for hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions impl