ArticlePloS one2013
Bioinformatics analysis identify novel OB fold protein coding genes in C. elegans.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the structural landscape of DNA maintenance proteins.Nature communications · 2024Article
- AnABlast: a new in silico strategy for the genome-wide search of novel genes and fossil regions.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe C. elegans genome has been extensively annotated by the WormBase consortium that uses state of the art bioinformatics pipelines, functional genomics and manual curation approaches. As a result, the identification of novel genes in silico in this model organism is becoming more challenging requiring new approaches. The Oligonucleotide-oligosaccharide binding (OB) fold is a highly divergent protein family, in which protein sequences, in spite of having the same fold, share very little sequence identity (5-25%). Therefore, evidence from sequence-based annotation may not be sufficient to identify all the members of this family. In C. elegans, the number of OB-fold proteins reported is remarkably low (n=46) compared to other evolutionary-related eukaryotes, such as yeast S. cerevisiae (n=344) or fruit fly D. melanogaster (n=84). Gene loss during evolution or differences in the level of annotation for this protein family, may explain these discrepancies. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsThis study examines the possibility that novel OB-fold coding genes exist in the worm. We developed a bioinformatics approach that uses the most sensitive sequence-sequence, sequence-profile and profile-profile similarity search methods followed by 3D-structure prediction as a filtering step to eliminate false positive candidate sequences. We have predicted 18 coding genes containing the OB-fold that have remarkably partially been characterized in C. elegans. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study raises the possibility that the annotation of highly divergent protein fold families can be improved in C. elegans. Similar strategies could be implemented for large scale analysis by the WormBase consortium when novel versions of the genome sequence of C. elegans, or other evolutionary related species are being released. This approach is of general interest to the scientific community since it can be used to annotate any genome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.