Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41986457›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

A benchmarking framework for comparative evaluation of low-complexity region detection tools in the human proteome.

Anirjit Chatterjee, Nagarjun Vijay

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Anirjit ChatterjeeComputational Evolutionary Genomics Lab, Department of Biological Sciences, IISER Bhopal, Bhauri, Madhya Pradesh, India. anirjit23@iiserb.ac.in.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9039-7434
Nagarjun VijayComputational Evolutionary Genomics Lab, Department of Biological Sciences, IISER Bhopal, Bhauri, Madhya Pradesh, India. nagarjun@iiserb.ac.in.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3955-3369

Funding

Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India BT/11/IYBA/2018/03Science and Engineering Research Board ECR/2017/001430
6 · The paper itself

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

Computational BiologyProteomeProteomicsAlgorithmsBenchmarkingEntropyHumansProteomeBenchmarkingCompositional biasComputational biologyLow-complexity regionsProtein sequence analysisProteomicsShannon entropy

Identifiers

PMID41986457
PMCPMC13237088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.