Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23458856›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2013

Emerging methods in protein co-evolution.

David de Juan, Florencio Pazos, Alfonso Valencia

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 325 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
325citing 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

325 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Temporal neuronal differentiation programs safeguard neuronal diversity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Forecasting drug resistant HIV protease evolution.PLoS computational biology · 2026
    Article
  11. Detection of Specificity-Determining Positions in Protein Families.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

265 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

David de JuanStructural Biology and Biocomputing Programme, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), Madrid, Spain.
Florencio Pazos
Alfonso Valencia

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Co-evolution is a fundamental component of the theory of evolution and is essential for understanding the relationships between species in complex ecological networks. A wide range of co-evolution-inspired computational methods has been designed to predict molecular interactions, but it is only recently that important advances have been made. Breakthroughs in the handling of phylogenetic information and in disentangling indirect relationships have resulted in an improved capacity to predict interactions between proteins and contacts between different protein residues. Here, we review the main co-evolution-based computational approaches, their theoretical basis, potential applications and foreseeable developments.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularProtein Structure, TertiaryAnimalsComputational BiologyHumansModels, GeneticModels, MolecularMutationPhylogenyProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID23458856

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.