Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16943573›Full record

ReviewMolecular biotechnology2006

Cataloging the relationships between proteins: a review of interaction databases.

Carol Rohl, Yancey Price, Tiffany B Fischer, Melissa Paczkowski, Michael F Zettel, Jerry Tsai

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular biotechnology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Carol RohlRosetta Inpharmatics LLC, Seattle, WA, USA.
Yancey Price
Tiffany B Fischer
Melissa Paczkowski
Michael F Zettel
Jerry Tsai

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

By organizing and making widely accessible the increasing amounts of data from high-throughput analyses, protein interaction databases have become an integral resource for the biological community in relating sequence data with higher-order function. To provide a sense of the use and applicability of these databases, we describe each of the major comprehensive interaction databases as well as some of the more specialized ones. Content description, search/browse functionalities, and data presentation are discussed. A succinct explanation of database contents helps the user quickly identify whether the database contains applicable information to their research interest. Broad levels of search/browse functions as well as descriptions/examples allow users to quickly find and access pertinent data. At this point, clear presentation of search results as well as the primary content is necessary. Many databases display information graphically or divided into smaller digestible parts over a number of tabbed/linked pages. In addition, cross-linking between the databases promotes interconnectivity of the data and is an added layer of relational data for the user. Overall, although these protein interaction databases are under continual improvement, their current state shows that much time and effort has gone into organizing and presenting these large sets of data-describing protein interactions.

Indexed as

Terminology as TopicDatabase Management SystemsDatabases, ProteinDocumentationInformation Storage and RetrievalProtein Interaction MappingProteinsVocabulary, ControlledProteins

Identifiers

PMID16943573

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.