ArticleJournal of proteome research2025
Evaluation of PE5 Entries on the Human Proteome Project Target List.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
One aim of the international Human Proteome Organization (HUPO) Human Proteome Project (HPP) is to obtain high-confidence translation evidence for every human protein-coding gene established in its target list of 19,433 entries based on the protein-coding genes from Ensembl-GENCODE. However, 76 are annotated in UniProtKB (as of release 2024_06) with PE5, indicating skepticism in the protein's existence from a manual curator, so it is unclear if these entries belong in the HPP target list. Here, we review these 76 entries by assembling evidence from the literature, reference databases, and genome alignments with other species to conclude whether these entries should be freed from their PE5 status to become annotated with PE1-4 in UniProtKB. We find that 17 of these have credible translation evidence and therefore should be upgraded to PE1. Another 15 lack translation evidence but have transcription evidence, the evolutionary hallmarks of protein-coding genes, and are presumed to produce functional proteins. 41 have no translational or transcriptional evidence, although they still bear the evolutionary hallmarks of protein-coding genes; currently, it remains unclear if these are protein-coding, so their representation becomes a matter of policy. Only 3 entries still seem best categorized as PE5 and excluded from the HUPO-HPP target list.
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.