Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12466301›Full record

ArticleGenome research2002

A strategy to retrieve the whole set of protein modules in microbial proteomes.

Stéphanie Le Bouder-Langevin, Isabelle Capron-Montaland, Renaud De Rosa, Bernard Labedan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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.

Stéphanie Le Bouder-LangevinEvolution Moléculaire et Génomique, Institut de Génétique et Microbiologie, Université Paris-Sud, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France.
Isabelle Capron-Montaland
Renaud De Rosa
Bernard Labedan
Université Paris-Sud · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein homology is often limited to long structural segments that we have previously called modules. We describe here a suite of programs used to catalog the whole set of modules present in microbial proteomes. First, the Darwin AllAll program detects homologous segments using thresholds for evolutionary distance and alignment length, and another program classifies these modules. After assembling these homologous modules in families, we further group families which are related by a chain of neighboring unrelated homologous modules. With the automatic analysis of these groups of families sharing homologous modules in independent multimodular proteins, one can split into their component parts many fused modules and/or deduce by logic more distant modules. All detected and inferred modules are reassembled in refined families. These two last steps are made by a unique program. Eventually, the soundness of the data obtained by this experimental approach is checked using independent tests. To illustrate this modular approach, we compared four proteobacterial proteomes (Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli, Haemophilus influenzae, and Helicobacter pylori). It appears that this method might retrieve from present-day proteins many of the modules which can help to trace back ancient events of gene duplication and/or fusion.

Indexed as

Sequence Homology, Amino AcidBacterial ProteinsCampylobacter jejuniDatabases, ProteinEscherichia coli ProteinsEvolution, MolecularGene DuplicationGenes, BacterialGram-Negative BacteriaHaemophilus influenzaeHelicobacter pyloriProteomeRecombination, GeneticResearch DesignSpecies SpecificityBacterial ProteinsEscherichia coli ProteinsProteome

Identifiers

PMID12466301
PMCPMC187581
OpenAlexW2043912398

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.