Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26455268›Full record

ArticleBiochimie2016

Peptidase specificity from the substrate cleavage collection in the MEROPS database and a tool to measure cleavage site conservation.

Neil D Rawlings

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biochimie, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Proteolytic and non-proteolytic mechanisms of keratin degradation inApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. An atlas of caspase cleavage events in differentiating muscle cells.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. How to use the MEROPS database and website to help understand peptidase specificity.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Neil D RawlingsWellcome Trust Sanger Institute and the EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, CB10 1SA, UK. Electronic address: ndr@ebi.ac.uk.
European Bioinformatics Institute · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT077044/Z/05/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One peptidase can usually be distinguished from another biochemically by its action on proteins, peptides and synthetic substrates. Since 1996, the MEROPS database (http://merops.sanger.ac.uk) has accumulated a collection of cleavages in substrates that now amounts to 66,615 cleavages. The total number of peptidases for which at least one cleavage is known is 1700 out of a total of 2457 different peptidases. This paper describes how the cleavages are obtained from the scientific literature, how they are annotated and how cleavages in peptides and proteins are cross-referenced to entries in the UniProt protein sequence database. The specificity profiles of 556 peptidases are shown for which ten or more substrate cleavages are known. However, it has been proposed that at least 40 cleavages in disparate proteins are required for specificity analysis to be meaningful, and only 163 peptidases (6.6%) fulfil this criterion. Also described are the various displays shown on the website to aid with the understanding of peptidase specificity, which are derived from the substrate cleavage collection. These displays include a logo, distribution matrix, and tables to summarize which amino acids or groups of amino acids are acceptable (or not acceptable) in each substrate binding pocket. For each protein substrate, there is a display to show how it is processed and degraded. Also described are tools on the website to help with the assessment of the physiological relevance of cleavages in a substrate. These tools rely on the hypothesis that a cleavage site that is conserved in orthologues is likely to be physiologically relevant, and alignments of substrate protein sequences are made utilizing the UniRef50 database, in which in each entry sequences are 50% or more identical. Conservation in this case means substitutions are permitted only if the amino acid is known to occupy the same substrate binding pocket from at least one other substrate cleaved by the same peptidase.

Indexed as

Databases, ProteinAmino Acid SequenceBinding SitesBiocatalysisComputational BiologyInternetMolecular Sequence DataPeptide HydrolasesProteolysisProteomeProteomicsReproducibility of ResultsSequence Homology, Amino AcidSubstrate SpecificityPeptide HydrolasesProteomeBinding pocketCleavagePeptidaseScissile bondSpecificitySubstrate

Identifiers

PMID26455268
PMCPMC4756867
OpenAlexW1817715517

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.