ReviewJournal of structural and functional genomics2012
A simple recipe for the non-expert bioinformaticist for building experimentally-testable hypotheses for proteins with no known homologs.
Review in Journal of structural and functional genomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of the protein-protein interactions (PPIs) of unique ORFs is a strategy for deciphering the biological roles of unique ORFs of interest. For uniform reference, we define unique ORFs as those for which no matching protein is found after PDB-BLAST search with default parameters. The uniqueness of the ORFs generally precludes the straightforward use of structure-based approaches in the design of experiments to explore PPIs. Many open-source bioinformatics tools, from the commonly-used to the relatively esoteric, have been built and validated to perform analyses and/or predictions of sorts on proteins. How can these available tools be combined into a protocol that helps the non-expert bioinformaticist researcher to design experiments to explore the PPIs of their unique ORF? Here we define a pragmatic protocol based on accessibility of software to achieve this and we make it concrete by applying it on two proteins-the ImuB and ImuA' proteins from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The protocol is pragmatic in that decisions are made largely based on the availability of easy-to-use freeware. We define the following basic and user-friendly software pathway to build testable PPI hypotheses for a query protein sequence: PSI-PRED → MUSTER → metaPPISP → ASAView and ConSurf. Where possible, other analytical and/or predictive tools may be included. Our protocol combines the software predictions and analyses with general bioinformatics principles to arrive at consensus, prioritised and testable PPI hypotheses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22956349What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.