ArticleProteins2015
The value of protein structure classification information-Surveying the scientific literature.
Article in Proteins, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elucidating the functional roles of prokaryotic proteins using big data and artificial intelligence.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2023Review
- SCOPe: improvements to the structural classification of proteins - extended database to facilitate variant interpretation and machine learning.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- Sequence and Structure Properties Uncover the Natural Classification of Protein Complexes Formed by Intrinsically Disordered Proteins via Mutual Synergistic Folding.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- SCOPe: classification of large macromolecular structures in the structural classification of proteins-extended database.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Organic Particles: Heterogeneous Hubs for Microbial Interactions in Aquatic Ecosystems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- BoBER: web interface to the base of bioisosterically exchangeable replacements.Journal of cheminformatics · 2017Article
- SCOPe: Manual Curation and Artifact Removal in the Structural Classification of Proteins - extended Database.Journal of molecular biology · 2017Article
- Impact of structure space continuity on protein fold classification.Scientific reports · 2016Article
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
Abstract
The Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP) and Class, Architecture, Topology, Homology (CATH) databases have been valuable resources for protein structure classification for over 20 years. Development of SCOP (version 1) concluded in June 2009 with SCOP 1.75. The SCOPe (SCOP-extended) database offers continued development of the classic SCOP hierarchy, adding over 33,000 structures. We have attempted to assess the impact of these two decade old resources and guide future development. To this end, we surveyed recent articles to learn how structure classification data are used. Of 571 articles published in 2012-2013 that cite SCOP, 439 actually use data from the resource. We found that the type of use was fairly evenly distributed among four top categories: A) study protein structure or evolution (27% of articles), B) train and/or benchmark algorithms (28% of articles), C) augment non-SCOP datasets with SCOP classification (21% of articles), and D) examine the classification of one protein/a small set of proteins (22% of articles). Most articles described computational research, although 11% described purely experimental research, and a further 9% included both. We examined how CATH and SCOP were used in 158 articles that cited both databases: while some studies used only one dataset, the majority used data from both resources. Protein structure classification remains highly relevant for a diverse range of problems and settings.
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.