Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17598914›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2007

Relationship between insertion/deletion (indel) frequency of proteins and essentiality.

Simon K Chan, Michael Hsing, Fereydoun Hormozdiari, Artem Cherkasov

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Characterization of parasite-specific indels and their proposed relevance for selective anthelminthic drug targeting.Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Built-in loops allow versatility in domain-domain interactions: lessons from self-interacting domains.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2008
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Simon K ChanCIHR/MSFHR Strategic Training Program in Bioinformatics, Canada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada. sichan@bcgsc.ca <sichan@bcgsc.ca>
Michael Hsing
Fereydoun Hormozdiari
Artem Cherkasov
University of British Columbia · CAMichael Smith Health Research BC · CASimon Fraser University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn a previous study, we demonstrated that some essential proteins from pathogenic organisms contained sizable insertions/deletions (indels) when aligned to human proteins of high sequence similarity. Such indels may provide sufficient spatial differences between the pathogenic protein and human proteins to allow for selective targeting. In one example, an indel difference was targeted via large scale in-silico screening. This resulted in selective antibodies and small compounds which were capable of binding to the deletion-bearing essential pathogen protein without any cross-reactivity to the highly similar human protein. The objective of the current study was to investigate whether indels were found more frequently in essential than non-essential proteins.

resultsWe have investigated three species, Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, for which high-quality protein essentiality data is available. Using these data, we demonstrated with t-test calculations that the mean indel frequencies in essential proteins were greater than that of non-essential proteins in the three proteomes. The abundance of indels in both types of proteins was also shown to be accurately modeled by the Weibull distribution. However, Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves showed that indel frequencies alone could not be used as a marker to accurately discriminate between essential and non-essential proteins in the three proteomes. Finally, we analyzed the protein interaction data available for S. cerevisiae and observed that indel-bearing proteins were involved in more interactions and had greater betweenness values within Protein Interaction Networks (PINs).

conclusionOverall, our findings demonstrated that indels were not randomly distributed across the studied proteomes and were likely to occur more often in essential proteins and those that were highly connected, indicating a possible role of sequence insertions and deletions in the regulation and modification of protein-protein interactions. Such observations will provide new insights into indel-based drug design using bioinformatics and cheminformatics tools.

Indexed as

DNA Transposable ElementsGene DeletionBacterial ProteinsBase SequenceFungal ProteinsGene FrequencyMolecular Sequence DataSequence Analysis, DNAStatistics as TopicBacterial ProteinsDNA Transposable ElementsFungal Proteins

Identifiers

PMID17598914
PMCPMC1925122
OpenAlexW2051873396

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.