Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28246462›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2016

A Comparison of Rosetta Stones in Adapter Protein Families.

Hulikal Shivashankara Santosh Kumar, Vadlapudi Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Hulikal Shivashankara Santosh KumarDepartment of Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta - 577451, Karnataka, India.
Vadlapudi KumarDepartment of Biochemistry, Davanagere University, Shivagangothri, Davanagere - 577002, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The inventory of proteins used in different kingdoms appears surprisingly similar in all sequenced eukaryotic genome. Protein domains represent the basic evolutionary units that form proteins. Domain duplication and shuffling by recombination are probably the most important forces driving protein evolution and hence the complexity of the proteome. While the duplication of whole genes as well as domain encoding exons increases the abundance of domains in the proteome, domain shuffling increases versatility, i.e. the number of distinct contexts in which a domain can occur. In this study we considered five important adapter domain families namely WD40, KELCH, Ankyrin, PDZ and Pleckstrin Homology (PH domain) family for the comparison of Domain versatility, Abundance and domain sharing between them. We used ecological statistics methods such as Jaccard's Similarity Index (JSI), Detrended Correspondence Analysis, k-Means clustering for the domain distribution data. We found high propensity of domain sharing between PH and PDZ. We found higher abundance of only few selected domains in PH, PDZ, ANK and KELCH families. We also found WD40 family with high versatility and less redundant domain occurrence, with less domain sharing. Hence, the assignments of functions to more orphan WD40 proteins that will help in the identification of suitable drug targets.

Indexed as

detrended correspondence analysisdomain sharingdomain versatilityRosetta StonesWD40

Identifiers

PMID28246462
PMCPMC5295043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.