Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26114101›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2015

Phyloproteomic Analysis of 11780 Six-Residue-Long Motifs Occurrences.

O V Galzitskaya, M Yu Lobanov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

O V GalzitskayaInstitute of Protein Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, 4 Institutskaya Street, Pushchino, Moscow Region 142290, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-3962-1520
M Yu LobanovInstitute of Protein Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, 4 Institutskaya Street, Pushchino, Moscow Region 142290, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How is it possible to find good traits for phylogenetic reconstructions? Here, we present a new phyloproteomic criterion that is an occurrence of simple motifs which can be imprints of evolution history. We studied the occurrences of 11780 six-residue-long motifs consisting of two randomly located amino acids in 97 eukaryotic and 25 bacterial proteomes. For all eukaryotic proteomes, with the exception of the Amoebozoa, Stramenopiles, and Diplomonadida kingdoms, the number of proteins containing the motifs from the first group (one of the two amino acids occurs once at the terminal position) made about 20%; in the case of motifs from the second (one of two amino acids occurs one time within the pattern) and third (the two amino acids occur randomly) groups, 30% and 50%, respectively. For bacterial proteomes, this relationship was 10%, 27%, and 63%, respectively. The matrices of correlation coefficients between numbers of proteins where a motif from the set of 11780 motifs appears at least once in 9 kingdoms and 5 phyla of bacteria were calculated. Among the correlation coefficients for eukaryotic proteomes, the correlation between the animal and fungi kingdoms (0.62) is higher than between fungi and plants (0.54). Our study provides support that animals and fungi are sibling kingdoms. Comparison of the frequencies of six-residue-long motifs in different proteomes allows obtaining phylogenetic relationships based on similarities between these frequencies: the Diplomonadida kingdoms are more close to Bacteria than to Eukaryota; Stramenopiles and Amoebozoa are more close to each other than to other kingdoms of Eukaryota.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularPhylogenyAmino Acid MotifsAnimalsBacteriaEukaryotaFungiPlantsProteomeProteome

Identifiers

PMID26114101
PMCPMC4465679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.