ArticleGenome biology2025
Comprehensive protein datasets and benchmarking for liquid-liquid phase separation studies.
Article in Genome biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Taxonomy-aware, disorder-matched benchmarking of phase-separating protein predictors.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Rethinking bioinformatics in liquid-liquid phase separation: data resources, predictive models, and an event-centric perspective.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Prediction of plant phase-separating proteins using positive-unlabeled learning.Genome biology · 2026Article
- A Systematic Evaluation of Protein Phase Separation Predictors across Diverse Protein Landscapes.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Comprehensive protein datasets and benchmarking for liquid-liquid phase separation studies.Genome biology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProteins self-organize in dynamic cellular environments by assembling into reversible biomolecular condensates through liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS). These condensates can comprise single or multiple proteins, with different roles in the ensemble's structural and functional integrity. Driver proteins form condensates autonomously, while client proteins just localize within them. Although several databases exist to catalog proteins undergoing LLPS, they often contain divergent data that impedes interoperability between these resources. Additionally, there is a lack of consensus on selecting proteins without explicit experimental association with condensates under physiological conditions (non-LLPS proteins or negative proteins). These two aspects have prevented the generation of reliable predictive models and fair benchmarks.
resultsIn this work, we use an integrated biocuration protocol to analyze information from all relevant LLPS databases and generate confident datasets of client and driver proteins. We introduce standardized negative datasets, encompassing both globular and disordered proteins. To validate our datasets, we investigate specific physicochemical traits related to LLPS across different subsets of protein sequences and benchmark them against 16 predictive algorithms. We observe significant differences not only between positive and negative instances but also among LLPS proteins themselves. The datasets from this study are available as a website at https://llpsdatasets.ppmclab.com and as a data repository at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15118996 .
conclusionsOur datasets offer a reliable means for confidently assessing the specific roles of proteins in LLPS and identifying key differences in physicochemical properties underlying this process. Moreover, we describe limitations in classical and state-of-the-art predictive algorithms by providing the most comprehensive benchmark to date.
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.