Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29855948›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2018

Making the Right Choice: Critical Parameters of the Y2H Systems.

Jitender Mehla, J Harry Caufield, Peter Uetz

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2018. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jitender MehlaVCU Life Sciences, Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
J Harry CaufieldNIH BD2K Center of Excellence at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Peter UetzVCU Life Sciences, Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. peter@uetz.us.
Virginia Commonwealth University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

Integrative functional mapping of the Escherichia coli membrane interactomeR01GM109895 · NIGMS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI SAIER, MILTON H., UETZ, PETER HANS · 2014 to 2017
$1.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM109895
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two-hybrid methods remain among the most preferred choices for detecting protein-protein interactions (PPIs) and much of the PPI data in databases have been produced using yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) screens. The Y2H methods are extensively used to detect PPIs because of their scalability and accessibility. Several variants of Y2H methods have been developed and used by different research groups, increasing the accessibility of these methods and their applications in detecting different types of PPIs. However, the availability of variations on the same core methodology emphasizes the need to have a systematic comparison of available Y2H methods in the context of their applicability, coverage and efficiency. In this chapter, we discuss the key parameters of Y2H methods, namely proteins of interest, vectors, libraries, screening strategies, data analysis, and provide a flowchart that should help to decide which Y2H strategy is most appropriate for a protein interaction screen.

Indexed as

Two-Hybrid System TechniquesHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansProtein BindingProtein Interaction MappingProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeProteinsHigh-throughputProtein–protein interactionsY2H strategy and approachesYeast two-hybrid screening

Identifiers

PMID29855948
PMCPMC11796303
OpenAlexW2805451925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.