Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34202810›Full record

ArticleGenes2021

Open Issues for Protein Function Assignment in

Friedhelm Pfeiffer, Mike Dyall-Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Friedhelm PfeifferComputational Biology Group, Max-Planck-Institute of Biochemistry, 82152 Martinsried, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4691-3246
Mike Dyall-SmithComputational Biology Group, Max-Planck-Institute of Biochemistry, 82152 Martinsried, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1880-1960

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnnotation ambiguities and annotation errors are a general challenge in genomics. While a reliable protein function assignment can be obtained by experimental characterization, this is expensive and time-consuming, and the number of such Gold Standard Proteins (GSP) with experimental support remains very low compared to proteins annotated by sequence homology, usually through automated pipelines. Even a GSP may give a misleading assignment when used as a reference: the homolog may be close enough to support isofunctionality, but the substrate of the GSP is absent from the species being annotated. In such cases, the enzymes cannot be isofunctional. Here, we examined a variety of such issues in halophilic archaea (class Halobacteria), with a strong focus on the model haloarchaeon

resultsAnnotated proteins of

conclusionsCompiling, describing and summarizing these open annotation issues and functional predictions will benefit the scientific community in the general effort to improve the evaluation of protein function assignments and more thoroughly detail them. By highlighting the gaps and likely annotation errors currently in the databases, we hope this study will provide a framework for experimentalists to systematically confirm (or disprove) our function predictions or to uncover yet more unexpected functions.

Indexed as

Archaeal ProteinsHalobacterialesHaloferax volcaniiMolecular Sequence AnnotationArchaeal Proteinsannotation errorgenome annotationGold Standard ProteinhaloarchaeaHaloferax volcanii

Identifiers

PMID34202810
PMCPMC8305020

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.