ArticlePloS one2021
Comparative genomics of DNA-binding transcription factors in archaeal and bacterial organisms.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- ENcyclopedia of TRAnscription Factors in Bacteria and Archaea genomes (ENTRAF) version 2.0.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- DeepReg: a deep learning hybrid model for predicting transcription factors in eukaryotic and prokaryotic genomes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Archaea represent a diverse phylogenetic group that includes free-living, extremophile, mesophile, symbiont, and opportunistic organisms. These prokaryotic organisms share a high significant similarity with the basal transcriptional machinery of Eukarya, and they share regulatory mechanisms with Bacteria, such as operonic organization and DNA-binding transcription factors (TFs). In this work, we identified the repertoire of TFs in 415 archaeal genomes and compared them with their counterparts in bacterial genomes. The comparisons of TFs, at a global level and per family, allowed us to identify similarities and differences between the repertoires of regulatory proteins of bacteria and archaea. For example, 11 of 62 families are more highly abundant in archaea than bacteria, and 13 families are abundant in bacteria but not in archaea and 38 families have similar abundances in the two groups. In addition, we found that archaeal TFs have a lower isoelectric point than bacterial proteins, i.e., they contain more acidic amino acids, and are smaller than bacterial TFs. Our findings suggest a divergence occurred for the regulatory proteins, even though they are common to archaea and bacteria. We consider that this analysis contributes to the comprehension of the structure and functionality of regulatory proteins of archaeal organisms.
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.