Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34113485›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Measuring pathway database coverage of the phosphoproteome.

Hannah Huckstep, Liam G Fearnley, Melissa J Davis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 57% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Hannah HuckstepDivision of Bioinformatics, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5451-294X
Liam G FearnleyDepartment of Medical Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Melissa J DavisDivision of Bioinformatics, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein phosphorylation is one of the best known post-translational mechanisms playing a key role in the regulation of cellular processes. Over 100,000 distinct phosphorylation sites have been discovered through constant improvement of mass spectrometry based phosphoproteomics in the last decade. However, data saturation is occurring and the bottleneck of assigning biologically relevant functionality to phosphosites needs to be addressed. There has been finite success in using data-driven approaches to reveal phosphosite functionality due to a range of limitations. The alternate, more suitable approach is making use of prior knowledge from literature-derived databases. Here, we analysed seven widely used databases to shed light on their suitability to provide functional insights into phosphoproteomics data. We first determined the global coverage of each database at both the protein and phosphosite level. We also determined how consistent each database was in its phosphorylation annotations compared to a global standard. Finally, we looked in detail at the coverage of each database over six experimental datasets. Our analysis highlights the relative strengths and weaknesses of each database, providing a guide in how each can be best used to identify biological mechanisms in phosphoproteomic data.

Indexed as

BioinformaticsDatabasesPhosphoproteomicsProteomics

Identifiers

PMID34113485
PMCPMC8162239
OpenAlexW3164454038

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.