Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15901249›Full record

ReviewGenomics, proteomics & bioinformatics2004

Predicting protein subcellular localization: past, present, and future.

Pierre Dönnes, Annette Höglund

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Single-Cell Protein Assays in Context: From 2D to 3D and In Situ Analysis.Annual review of analytical chemistry (Palo Alto, Calif.) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. SPACE: STRING proteins as complementary embeddings.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025
    Article
  5. Full-Length Transcriptome Sequencing ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Unraveling the Secrets of a Double-Life Fungus by Genomics:Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Pierre DönnesDepartment for Simulation of Biological Systems, Wilhelm Schickard Institute, University of Tübingen, D-72076 Tübingen, Germany.
Annette Höglund

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Functional characterization of every single protein is a major challenge of the post-genomic era. The large-scale analysis of a cell's proteins, proteomics, seeks to provide these proteins with reliable annotations regarding their interaction partners and functions in the cellular machinery. An important step on this way is to determine the subcellular localization of each protein. Eukaryotic cells are divided into subcellular compartments, or organelles. Transport across the membrane into the organelles is a highly regulated and complex cellular process. Predicting the subcellular localization by computational means has been an area of vivid activity during recent years. The publicly available prediction methods differ mainly in four aspects: the underlying biological motivation, the computational method used, localization coverage, and reliability, which are of importance to the user. This review provides a short description of the main events in the protein sorting process and an overview of the most commonly used methods in this field.

Indexed as

ProteomicsComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyInternetProteinsSubcellular FractionsProteins

Identifiers

PMID15901249
PMCPMC5187447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.