This service exclusively searches for literature that cites resources. Please be aware that the total number of searchable documents is limited to those containing RRIDs and does not include all open-access literature.
Understanding living systems is crucial for curing diseases. To achieve this task we have to understand biological networks based on protein-protein interactions. Bioinformatics has come up with a great amount of databases and tools that support analysts in exploring protein-protein interactions on an integrated level for knowledge discovery. They provide predictions and correlations, indicate possibilities for future experimental research and fill the gaps to complete the picture of biochemical processes. There are numerous and huge databases of protein-protein interactions used to gain insights into answering some of the many questions of systems biology. Many computational resources integrate interaction data with additional information on molecular background. However, the vast number of diverse Bioinformatics resources poses an obstacle to the goal of understanding. We present a survey of databases that enable the visual analysis of protein networks.
Over the past few years, the number of known protein-protein interactions has increased substantially. To make this information more readily available, a number of publicly available databases have set out to collect and store protein-protein interaction data. Protein-protein interactions have been retrieved from six major databases, integrated and the results compared. The six databases (the Biological General Repository for Interaction Datasets [BioGRID], the Molecular INTeraction database [MINT], the Biomolecular Interaction Network Database [BIND], the Database of Interacting Proteins [DIP], the IntAct molecular interaction database [IntAct] and the Human Protein Reference Database [HPRD]) differ in scope and content; integration of all datasets is non-trivial owing to differences in data annotation. With respect to human protein-protein interaction data, HPRD seems to be the most comprehensive. To obtain a complete dataset, however, interactions from all six databases have to be combined. To overcome this limitation, meta-databases such as the Agile Protein Interaction Database (APID) offer access to integrated protein-protein interaction datasets, although these also currently have certain restrictions.
Frequently, several alternative names are in use for biological objects such as genes and proteins. Applications like manual literature search, automated text-mining, named entity identification, gene/protein annotation, and linking of knowledge from different information sources require the knowledge of all used names referring to a given gene or protein. Various organism-specific or general public databases aim at organizing knowledge about genes and proteins. These databases can be used for deriving gene and protein name dictionaries. So far, little is known about the differences between databases in terms of size, ambiguities and overlap.
Almost all the cellular processes in a living system are controlled by proteins: They regulate gene expression, catalyze chemical reactions, transport small molecules across membranes, and transmit signal across membranes. Even, a viral infection is often initiated through virus-host protein interactions. Protein-protein interactions (PPIs) are the physical contacts between two or more proteins and they represent complex biological functions. Nowadays, PPIs have been used to construct PPI networks to study complex pathways for revealing the functions of unknown proteins. Scientists have used PPIs to find the molecular basis of certain diseases and also some potential drug targets. In this review, we will discuss how PPI networks are essential to understand the molecular basis of virus-host relationships and several databases which are dedicated to virus-host interaction studies. Here, we present a short but comprehensive review on PPIs, including the experimental and computational methods of finding PPIs, the databases dedicated to virus-host PPIs, and the associated various applications in protein interaction networks of some lethal viruses with their hosts.
We describe domain pair exclusion analysis (DPEA), a method for inferring domain interactions from databases of interacting proteins. DPEA features a log odds score, Eij, reflecting confidence that domains i and j interact. We analyzed 177,233 potential domain interactions underlying 26,032 protein interactions. In total, 3,005 high-confidence domain interactions were inferred, and were evaluated using known domain interactions in the Protein Data Bank. DPEA may prove useful in guiding experiment-based discovery of previously unrecognized domain interactions.
The improvement of our knowledge of the virosphere, which includes unknown viruses, is a key area in virology. Metagenomics tools, which perform taxonomic assignation from high throughput sequencing datasets, are generally evaluated with datasets derived from biological samples or in silico spiked samples containing known viral sequences present in public databases, resulting in the inability to evaluate the capacity of these tools to detect novel or distant viruses. Simulating realistic evolutionary directions is therefore key to benchmark and improve these tools. Additionally, expanding current databases with realistic simulated sequences can improve the capacity of alignment-based searching strategies for finding distant viruses, which could lead to a better characterization of the "dark matter" of metagenomics data. Here, we present Virus Pop, a novel pipeline for simulating realistic protein sequences and adding new branches to a protein phylogenetic tree. The tool generates simulated sequences with substitution rate variations that are dependent on protein domains and inferred from the input dataset, allowing for a realistic representation of protein evolution. The pipeline also infers ancestral sequences corresponding to multiple internal nodes of the input data phylogenetic tree, enabling new sequences to be inserted at various points of interest in the group studied. We demonstrated that Virus Pop produces simulated sequences that closely match the structural and functional characteristics of real protein sequences, taking as an example the spike protein of sarbecoviruses. Virus Pop also succeeded at creating sequences that resemble real sequences not included in the databases, which facilitated the identification of a novel pathogenic human circovirus not included in the input database. In conclusion, Virus Pop is helpful for challenging taxonomic assignation tools and could help improve databases to better detect distant viruses.
The classification of protein domains in the CATH resource is primarily based on structural comparisons, sequence similarity and manual analysis. One of the main bottlenecks in the processing of new entries is the evaluation of 'borderline' cases by human curators with reference to the literature, and better tools for helping both expert and non-expert users quickly identify relevant functional information from text are urgently needed. A text based method for protein classification is presented, which complements the existing sequence and structure-based approaches, especially in cases exhibiting low similarity to existing members and requiring manual intervention. The method is based on the assumption that textual similarity between sets of documents relating to proteins reflects biological function similarities and can be exploited to make classification decisions.
Databases of literature-curated protein-protein interactions (PPIs) are often used to interpret high-throughput interactome mapping studies and estimate error rates. These databases combine interactions across thousands of published studies and experimental techniques. Because the tendency for two proteins to interact depends on the local conditions, this heterogeneity of conditions means that only a subset of database PPIs are interacting during any given experiment. A typical use of these databases as gold standards in interactome mapping projects, however, assumes that PPIs included in the database are indeed interacting under the experimental conditions of the study.
Protein-protein interactions (PPIs) are a critical component for many underlying biological processes. A PPI network can provide insight into the mechanisms of these processes, as well as the relationships among different proteins and toxicants that are potentially involved in the processes. There are many PPI databases publicly available, each with a specific focus. The challenge is how to effectively combine their contents to generate a robust and biologically relevant PPI network.
Fueled by rapid progress in high-throughput sequencing, the size of public sequence databases doubles every two years. Searching the ever larger and more redundant databases is getting increasingly inefficient. Clustering can help to organize sequences into homologous and functionally similar groups and can improve the speed, sensitivity, and readability of homology searches. However, because the clustering time is quadratic in the number of sequences, standard sequence search methods are becoming impracticable.
Protein homology search is an important, yet time-consuming, step in everything from protein annotation to metagenomics. Its application, however, has become increasingly challenging, due to the exponential growth of protein databases. In order to perform homology search at the required scale, many methods have been proposed as alternatives to BLAST that make an explicit trade-off between sensitivity and speed. One such method, SANSparallel, uses a parallel implementation of the suffix array neighbourhood search (SANS) technique to achieve high speed and provides several modes to allow for greater sensitivity at the expense of performance.
Each major protein database uses its own conventions when assigning protein identifiers. Resolving the various, potentially unstable, identifiers that refer to identical proteins is a major challenge. This is a common problem when attempting to unify datasets that have been annotated with proteins from multiple data sources or querying data providers with one flavour of protein identifiers when the source database uses another. Partial solutions for protein identifier mapping exist but they are limited to specific species or techniques and to a very small number of databases. As a result, we have not found a solution that is generic enough and broad enough in mapping scope to suit our needs.
In recent years, mammalian protein-protein interaction network databases have been developed. The interactions in these databases are either extracted manually from low-throughput experimental biomedical research literature, extracted automatically from literature using techniques such as natural language processing (NLP), generated experimentally using high-throughput methods such as yeast-2-hybrid screens, or interactions are predicted using an assortment of computational approaches. Genes or proteins identified as significantly changing in proteomic experiments, or identified as susceptibility disease genes in genomic studies, can be placed in the context of protein interaction networks in order to assign these genes and proteins to pathways and protein complexes.
Literature curation of protein interaction data faces a number of challenges. Although curators increasingly adhere to standard data representations, the data that various databases actually record from the same published information may differ significantly. Some of the reasons underlying these differences are well known, but their global impact on the interactions collectively curated by major public databases has not been evaluated. Here we quantify the agreement between curated interactions from 15 471 publications shared across nine major public databases. Results show that on average, two databases fully agree on 42% of the interactions and 62% of the proteins curated from the same publication. Furthermore, a sizable fraction of the measured differences can be attributed to divergent assignments of organism or splice isoforms, different organism focus and alternative representations of multi-protein complexes. Our findings highlight the impact of divergent curation policies across databases, and should be relevant to both curators and data consumers interested in analyzing protein-interaction data generated by the scientific community. Database URL: http://wodaklab.org/iRefWeb.
We present three clustered protein sequence databases, Uniclust90, Uniclust50, Uniclust30 and three databases of multiple sequence alignments (MSAs), Uniboost10, Uniboost20 and Uniboost30, as a resource for protein sequence analysis, function prediction and sequence searches. The Uniclust databases cluster UniProtKB sequences at the level of 90%, 50% and 30% pairwise sequence identity. Uniclust90 and Uniclust50 clusters showed better consistency of functional annotation than those of UniRef90 and UniRef50, owing to an optimised clustering pipeline that runs with our MMseqs2 software for fast and sensitive protein sequence searching and clustering. Uniclust sequences are annotated with matches to Pfam, SCOP domains, and proteins in the PDB, using our HHblits homology detection tool. Due to its high sensitivity, Uniclust contains 17% more Pfam domain annotations than UniProt. Uniboost MSAs of three diversities are built by enriching the Uniclust30 MSAs with local sequence matches from MMseqs2 profile searches through Uniclust30. All databases can be downloaded from the Uniclust server at uniclust.mmseqs.com. Users can search clusters by keywords and explore their MSAs, taxonomic representation, and annotations. Uniclust is updated every two months with the new UniProt release.
Proteogenomics has the potential to advance genome annotation through high quality peptide identifications derived from mass spectrometry experiments, which demonstrate a given gene or isoform is expressed and translated at the protein level. This can advance our understanding of genome function, discovering novel genes and gene structure that have not yet been identified or validated. Because of the high-throughput shotgun nature of most proteomics experiments, it is essential to carefully control for false positives and prevent any potential misannotation. A number of statistical procedures to deal with this are in wide use in proteomics, calculating false discovery rate (FDR) and posterior error probability (PEP) values for groups and individual peptide spectrum matches (PSMs). These methods control for multiple testing and exploit decoy databases to estimate statistical significance. Here, we show that database choice has a major effect on these confidence estimates leading to significant differences in the number of PSMs reported. We note that standard target:decoy approaches using six-frame translations of nucleotide sequences, such as assembled transcriptome data, apparently underestimate the confidence assigned to the PSMs. The source of this error stems from the inflated and unusual nature of the six-frame database, where for every target sequence there exists five "incorrect" targets that are unlikely to code for protein. The attendant FDR and PEP estimates lead to fewer accepted PSMs at fixed thresholds, and we show that this effect is a product of the database and statistical modeling and not the search engine. A variety of approaches to limit database size and remove noncoding target sequences are examined and discussed in terms of the altered statistical estimates generated and PSMs reported. These results are of importance to groups carrying out proteogenomics, aiming to maximize the validation and discovery of gene structure in sequenced genomes, while still controlling for false positives.
Since the first approval of a protein kinase inhibitor (PKI) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2001, 55 new PKIs have reached the market, and many inhibitors are currently being evaluated in clinical trials. This is a clear indication that protein kinases still represent major drug targets for the pharmaceutical industry. In a previous work, we have introduced PKIDB, a publicly available database, gathering PKIs that have already been approved (Phase 4), as well as those currently in clinical trials (Phases 0 to 3). This database is updated frequently, and an analysis of the new data is presented here. In addition, we compared the set of PKIs present in PKIDB with the PKIs in early preclinical studies found in ChEMBL, the largest publicly available chemical database. For each dataset, the distribution of physicochemical descriptors related to drug-likeness is presented. From these results, updated guidelines to prioritize compounds for targeting protein kinases are proposed. The results of a principal component analysis (PCA) show that the PKIDB dataset is fully encompassed within all PKIs found in the public database. This observation is reinforced by a principal moments of inertia (PMI) analysis of all molecules. Interestingly, we notice that PKIs in clinical trials tend to explore new 3D chemical space. While a great majority of PKIs is located on the area of "flatland", we find few compounds exploring the 3D structural space. Finally, a scaffold diversity analysis of the two datasets, based on frequency counts was performed. The results give insight into the chemical space of PKIs, and can guide researchers to reach out new unexplored areas. PKIDB is freely accessible from the following website: http://www.icoa.fr/pkidb.
Pathogens are able to deliver small-secreted, cysteine-rich proteins into plant cells to enable infection. The computational prediction of effector proteins remains one of the most challenging areas in the study of plant fungi interactions. At present, there are several bioinformatic programs that can help in the identification of these proteins; however, in most cases, these programs are managed independently. Here, we present EffHunter, an easy and fast bioinformatics tool for the identification of effectors. This predictor was used to identify putative effectors in 88 proteomes using characteristics such as size, cysteine residue content, secretion signal and transmembrane domains.
In the wake of the numerous now-fruitful genome projects, we have witnessed a 'tsunami' of sequence data and with it the birth of the field of bioinformatics. Bioinformatics involves the application of information technology to the management and analysis of biological data. For many of us, this means that databases and their search tools have become an essential part of the research environment. However, the rate of sequence generation and the haphazard proliferation of databases have made it difficult to keep pace with developments, even for the cognoscenti. Moreover, increasing amounts of sequence information do not necessarily equate with an increase in knowledge, and in the panic to automate the route from raw data to biological insight, we may be generating and propagating innumerable errors in our precious databases. In the genome era upon us, researchers want rapid, easy-to-use, reliable tools for functional characterisation of newly determined sequences. For the pharmaceutical industry in particular, the Pandora's box of bioinformatics harbours an information-rich nugget, ripe with potential drug targets and possible new avenues for the development of therapeutic agents. This review outlines the current status of the major pattern databases now used routinely in the analysis of protein sequences. The review is divided into three main sections. In the first, commonly used terms are defined and the methods behind the databases are briefly described; in the second, the structure and content of the principal pattern databases are discussed; and in the final part, several alignment databases, which are frequently confused with pattern databases, are mentioned. For the new-comer, the array of resources, the range of methods behind them and the different tools required to search them can be confusing. The review therefore also briefly mentions a current international endeavour to integrate the diverse databases, which effort should facilitate sequence analysis in the future. This is particularly important for target-discovery programmes, where the challenge is to rationalise the enormous numbers of potential targets generated by sequence database searches. This problem may be addressed, at least in part, by reducing search outputs to the more focused and manageable subsets suggested by searches of integrated groups of family-specific pattern databases.
Welcome to the FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org Resources search. From here you can search through a compilation of resources used by FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org and see how data is organized within our community.
You are currently on the Community Resources tab looking through categories and sources that FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org has compiled. You can navigate through those categories from here or change to a different tab to execute your search through. Each tab gives a different perspective on data.
If you have an account on FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org then you can log in from here to get additional features in FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org such as Collections, Saved Searches, and managing Resources.
Here is the search term that is being executed, you can type in anything you want to search for. Some tips to help searching:
You can save any searches you perform for quick access to later from here.
We recognized your search term and included synonyms and inferred terms along side your term to help get the data you are looking for.
If you are logged into FDI Lab - SciCrunch.org you can add data records to your collections to create custom spreadsheets across multiple sources of data.
Here are the facets that you can filter your papers by.
From here we'll present any options for the literature, such as exporting your current results.
If you have any further questions please check out our FAQs Page to ask questions and see our tutorials. Click this button to view this tutorial again.
Year:
Count: