Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21551138›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2011

Identification of prokaryotic small proteins using a comparative genomic approach.

Josue Samayoa, Fitnat H Yildiz, Kevin Karplus

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Rescue ofeLife · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Exploring the Peptide Potential of Genomes.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. EcoSal Plus · 2020
    Review
  11. Review
  12. mBio · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Identifying (non-)coding RNAs and small peptides: challenges and opportunities.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2015
    Review
  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

3 authors.

Josue SamayoaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Institute for Computational Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA. jsamayoa@jhu.edu
Fitnat H Yildiz
Kevin Karplus

Funding

UCSC Center for Genomic Science, and Minority Outreach ProgramP41HG002371 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI HAUSSLER, DAVID H · 2001 to 2011
$34.8M
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ IMSD PROGRAMR25GM058903 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI JURICA, MELISSA S · 1999 to 2019
$12.2M
NHGRI NIH HHS 5P41HG002371-09NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG002371NIGMS NIH HHS 2 R25 GM58903NIGMS NIH HHS R25 GM058903
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationAccurate prediction of genes encoding small proteins (on the order of 50 amino acids or less) remains an elusive open problem in bioinformatics. Some of the best methods for gene prediction use either sequence composition analysis or sequence similarity to a known protein coding sequence. These methods often fail for small proteins, however, either due to a lack of experimentally verified small protein coding genes or due to the limited statistical significance of statistics on small sequences. Our approach is based upon the hypothesis that true small proteins will be under selective pressure for encoding the particular amino acid sequence, for ease of translation by the ribosome and for structural stability. This stability can be achieved either independently or as part of a larger protein complex. Given this assumption, it follows that small proteins should display conserved local protein structure properties much like larger proteins. Our method incorporates neural-net predictions for three local structure alphabets within a comparative genomic approach using a genomic alignment of 22 closely related bacteria genomes to generate predictions for whether or not a given open reading frame (ORF) encodes for a small protein.

resultsWe have applied this method to the complete genome for Escherichia coli strain K12 and looked at how well our method performed on a set of 60 experimentally verified small proteins from this organism. Out of a total of 11 407 possible ORFs, we found that 6 of the top 10 and 27 of the top 100 predictions belonged to the set of 60 experimentally verified small proteins. We found 35 of all the true small proteins within the top 200 predictions. We compared our method to Glimmer, using a default Glimmer protocol and a modified small ORF Glimmer protocol with a lower minimum size cutoff. The default Glimmer protocol identified 16 of the true small proteins (all in the top 200 predictions), but failed to predict on 34 due to size cutoffs. The small ORF Glimmer protocol made predictions for all the experimentally verified small proteins but only contained 9 of the 60 true small proteins within the top 200 predictions. CONTACT: jsamayoa@jhu.edu

Indexed as

Open Reading FramesBase SequenceCodonEnterobacteriaceaeEscherichia coliEscherichia coli K12Escherichia coli ProteinsGenomicsSequence AlignmentCodonEscherichia coli Proteins

Identifiers

PMID21551138
PMCPMC3117347

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.