Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16118666›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2005

Functional coverage of the human genome by existing structures, structural genomics targets, and homology models.

Lei Xie, Philip E Bourne

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Network Pharmacology- and Molecular Docking-Based Identification of Potential Phytocompounds fromEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Knowledge-based fragment binding prediction.PLoS computational biology · 2014
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Structure-based systems biology for analyzing off-target binding.Current opinion in structural biology · 2011
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 1,000 structures and more from the MCSG.BMC structural biology · 2011
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lei XieSan Diego Supercomputer Center and Department of Pharmacology, University of California, San Diego, California, USA.
Philip E Bourne
University of California, San Diego · US

Funding

Tools &Data Resources in Support of Structural GenomicsP01GM063208 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BOURNE, PHILIP E · 2002 to 2006
$5.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM63208NIGMS NIH HHS P01 GM063208
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The bias in protein structure and function space resulting from experimental limitations and targeting of particular functional classes of proteins by structural biologists has long been recognized, but never continuously quantified. Using the Enzyme Commission and the Gene Ontology classifications as a reference frame, and integrating structure data from the Protein Data Bank (PDB), target sequences from the structural genomics projects, structure homology derived from the SUPERFAMILY database, and genome annotations from Ensembl and NCBI, we provide a quantified view, both at the domain and whole-protein levels, of the current and projected coverage of protein structure and function space relative to the human genome. Protein structures currently provide at least one domain that covers 37% of the functional classes identified in the genome; whole structure coverage exists for 25% of the genome. If all the structural genomics targets were solved (twice the current number of structures in the PDB), it is estimated that structures of one domain would cover 69% of the functional classes identified and complete structure coverage would be 44%. Homology models from existing experimental structures extend the 37% coverage to 56% of the genome as single domains and 25% to 31% for complete structures. Coverage from homology models is not evenly distributed by protein family, reflecting differing degrees of sequence and structure divergence within families. While these data provide coverage, conversely, they also systematically highlight functional classes of proteins for which structures should be determined. Current key functional families without structure representation are highlighted here; updated information on the "most wanted list" that should be solved is available on a weekly basis from http://function.rcsb.org:8080/pdb/function_distribution/index.html.

Indexed as

Models, MolecularStructural Homology, ProteinDatabases, ProteinDiseaseGenome, HumanGenomicsHumans

Identifiers

PMID16118666
PMCPMC1188274
OpenAlexW1973951655

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.