ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2018
Where differences resemble: sequence-feature analysis in curated databases of intrinsically disordered proteins.
Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- MobiDB: 10 years of intrinsically disordered proteins.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- <i>Drosophila</i> insulator proteins exhibit in vivo liquid-liquid phase separation properties.Life science alliance · 2022Article
- Databases for intrinsically disordered proteins.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2022Review
- DisProt in 2022: improved quality and accessibility of protein intrinsic disorder annotation.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- MobiDB: intrinsically disordered proteins in 2021.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- DisProt: intrinsic protein disorder annotation in 2020.Nucleic acids research · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intrinsic disorder (ID) in proteins is involved in crucial interactions in the living cell. As the importance of ID is increasingly recognized, so are detailed analyses aimed at its identification and characterization. An open question remains the existence of ID `flavors' representing different sub-phenomena. Several databases collect manually curated examples of experimentally validated ID, focusing on apparently different aspects of this phenomenon. The recent update of MobiDB presented the opportunity to carry out an in-depth comparison of the content of these validated ID collections, namely DIBS, DisProt, IDEAL, MFIB, FuzDB, ELM and UniProt. In order to assess what is specific to different ID flavors, we analyzed relevant sequence-based features, such as amino acid composition, length, taxa and gene ontology terms, highlighting differences and similarities among datasets. Despite that, the majority of the considered features are not statistically different across databases, with the exception of ELM. FuzDB also shares half of its entries with DisProt. In general, different ID databases describe similar phenomena. DisProt, which is the largest database, better represents the entire spectrum of different disorder flavors and the corresponding sequence diversity.
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.