ArticleMolecular biology research communications2024
In-silico comparison of fungal and bacterial asparaginase enzymes.
Article in Molecular biology research communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- L-asparaginase from the mangrove endophyteToxicology research · 2025Article
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
L-asparaginase is a commercial enzyme with a wide variety of applications. Asparaginase is known as an anti-cancer agent that is effective for the treatment of certain lymphomas and leukemias by growth inhibition of human cancer cells. Additionally, asparaginase is used in the food industry in a pretreatment process to decrease the accumulation of carcinogenic acrylamide. In this paper, different aspects of bacterial and fungal asparaginases such as mass, hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity of pseudo amino acid composition (PseAAC), physicochem-ical properties, and structural motifs were studied, and ROC curve statistical analysis was used for the comparison. The results showed that none of the physicochemical properties of fungal and bacterial asparaginase could not be differed, except molecular weight and sequence length. MEME Suite analysis demonstrated that there was a motif that was specific for bacterial asparaginases. However, analysis based on the concept of PseACC indicated a differentiation line between fungal and bacterial asparaginases. In conclusion, although there was not any specific demonstration to separate the bacterial and fungal asparaginases in the case of physicochemical properties, PseAAC analysis can be an appropriate and usable method to differentiate between them.
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.