ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2015
The enzymatic nature of an anonymous protein sequence cannot reliably be inferred from superfamily level structural information alone.
Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2015. 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.
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
As the largest fraction of any proteome does not carry out enzymatic functions, and in order to leverage 3D structural data for the annotation of increasingly higher volumes of sequence data, we wanted to assess the strength of the link between coarse grained structural data (i.e., homologous superfamily level) and the enzymatic versus non-enzymatic nature of protein sequences. To probe this relationship, we took advantage of 41 phylogenetically diverse (encompassing 11 distinct phyla) genomes recently sequenced within the GEBA initiative, for which we integrated structural information, as defined by CATH, with enzyme level information, as defined by Enzyme Commission (EC) numbers. This analysis revealed that only a very small fraction (about 1%) of domain sequences occurring in the analyzed genomes was found to be associated with homologous superfamilies strongly indicative of enzymatic function. Resorting to less stringent criteria to define enzyme versus non-enzyme biased structural classes or excluding highly prevalent folds from the analysis had only modest effect on this proportion. Thus, the low genomic coverage by structurally anchored protein domains strongly associated to catalytic activities indicates that, on its own, the power of coarse grained structural information to infer the general property of being an enzyme is rather limited.
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.