ArticleScientific reports2026
A benchmarking framework for comparative evaluation of low-complexity region detection tools in the human proteome.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Low-complexity regions (LCRs) are compositionally biased segments of proteins that play critical roles in molecular recognition, structural flexibility, and phase separation. Yet, their accurate detection remains challenging due to methodological variability among computational tools. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive benchmarking of eight widely used LCR detection methods (under multiple parameter settings) across the Homo sapiens proteome. A modular computational framework was developed to systematically compare LCR characteristics, including residue-centric analyses such as length distribution and coverage percentage. Protein-centric analyses included compositional bias, amino acid composition, and Shannon entropy. Consensus analyses revealed that regions detected by multiple tools were typically longer, more repetitive, and compositionally purer, suggesting stronger structural or functional relevance. Jaccard similarity matrices revealed distinct clustering patterns among algorithms based on shared detection principles. Additionally, entropy and purity analyses highlighted fundamental differences in sequence complexity captured by each tool. Together, these results provide a unified, reproducible framework for evaluating LCR detection performance and offer practical guidelines for reliable annotation of low-complexity regions in proteome-scale studies.
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.