Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11911438›Full record

ReviewThe pharmacogenomics journal2001

Global perspectives on proteins: comparing genomes in terms of folds, pathways and beyond.

R Das, J Junker, D Greenbaum, M B Gerstein

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The pharmacogenomics journal, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R DasDepartment of Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
J Junker
D Greenbaum
M B Gerstein
Yale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The sequencing of complete genomes provides us with a global view of all the proteins in an organism. Proteomic analysis can be done on a purely sequence-based level, with a focus on finding homologues and grouping them into families and clusters of orthologs. However, incorporating protein structure into this analysis provides valuable simplification; it allows one to collect together very distantly related sequences, thus condensing the proteome into a minimal number of 'parts.' We describe issues related to surveying proteomes in terms of structural parts, including methods for fold assignment and formats for comparisons (eg top-10 lists and whole-genome trees), and show how biases in the databases and in sampling can affect these surveys. We illustrate our main points through a case study on the unique protein properties evident in many thermophile genomes (eg more salt bridges). Finally, we discuss metabolic pathways as an even greater simplification of genomes. In comparison to folds these allow the organization of many more genes into coherent systems, yet can nevertheless be understood in many of the same terms.

Indexed as

GenomeGenomicsProtein FoldingAnimalsDatabases, FactualHumansProtein ConformationProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID11911438
OpenAlexW2095130267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.