ArticleProteomics2019
On the Need to Develop Guidelines for Characterizing and Reporting Intrinsic Disorder in Proteins.
Article in Proteomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Analysis of Protein Disorder Predictions in the Light of a Protein Structural Alphabet.Biomolecules · 2020Article
- Disorder Atlas: Web-based software for the proteome-based interpretation of intrinsic disorder predictions.Computational biology and chemistry · 2019Article
- A Suggestion of Converting Protein Intrinsic Disorder to Structural Entropy Using Shannon's Information Theory.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Dark Proteome Database: Studies on Dark Proteins.High-throughput · 2019Article
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
Since the early 2000s, numerous computational tools have been created and used to predict intrinsic disorder in proteins. At present, the output from these algorithms is difficult to interpret in the absence of standards or references for comparison. There are many reasons to establish a set of standard-based guidelines to evaluate computational protein disorder predictions. This viewpoint explores a handful of these reasons, including standardizing nomenclature to improve communication, rigor and reproducibility, and making it easier for newcomers to enter the field. An approach for reporting predicted disorder in single proteins with respect to whole proteomes is discussed. The suggestions are not intended to be formulaic; they should be viewed as a starting point to establish guidelines for interpreting and reporting computational protein disorder predictions.
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.