The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of prediction accuracy of protein function from protein–protein interaction data
Abstract
Functional prediction of open reading frames coded in the genome is one of the most important tasks in yeast genomics. Among a number of large‐scale experiments for assigning certain functional classes to proteins, experiments determining protein–protein interaction are especially important because interacting proteins usually have the same function. Thus, it seems possible to predict the function of a protein when the function of its interacting partner is known. However, in vitro experiments often suffer from artifacts and a protein can often have multiple binding partners with different functions. We developed an objective prediction method that can systematically include the information of indirect interaction. Our method can predict the subcellular localization, the cellular role and the biochemical function of yeast proteins with accuracies of 72.7%, 63.6% and 52.7%, respectively. The prediction accuracy rises for proteins with more than three binding partners and thus we present the open prediction results for 16 such proteins. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Uetz, P., Giot, L., Cagney, G., Mansfield, T. A., Judson, R. S., Knight, J. R., Lockshon, D., Narayan, V., Srinivasan, M., Pochart, P., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35001009 · Cited by 4,706
Nakai, K., & Horton, P. (1999) · Trends in Biochemical Sciences · doi:10.1016/s0968-0004(98)01336-x · Cited by 2,181 · cited 4×
“The prediction result of subcellular localization by PSORT (Nakai and Horton, 1999) is also shown.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationDetecting Protein Function and Protein-Protein Interactions from Genome Sequences
Marcotte, E. M., Pellegrini, M., Ng, H.-L., Rice, D. W., Yeates, T. O., & Eisenberg, D. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.285.5428.751 · Cited by 1,670
A protein linkage map of Escherichia coli bacteriophage T7
Bartel, P. L., Roecklein, J. A., SenGupta, D., & Fields, S. (1996) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng0196-72 · Cited by 333
Cited by
Network‐based prediction of protein function
Sharan, R., Ulitsky, I., & Shamir, R. (2007) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.1038/msb4100129 · Cited by 1,074
Protein-Protein Interaction Detection: Methods and Analysis
Rao, V. S., Srinivas, K., Sujini, G. N., & Kumar, G. N. S. (2014) · International Journal of Proteomics · doi:10.1155/2014/147648 · Cited by 811
Analyzing and modeling real-world phenomena with complex networks: a survey of applications
Costa, L. D. F., Oliveira, O. N., Travieso, G., Rodrigues, F. A., Villas Boas, P. R., Antiqueira, L., Viana, M. P., & Correa Rocha, L. E. (2011) · Advances in Physics · doi:10.1080/00018732.2011.572452 · Cited by 800
Relating Whole-Genome Expression Data with Protein-Protein Interactions
Jansen, R., Greenbaum, D., & Gerstein, M. (2002) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.205602 · Cited by 656
How Reliable are Experimental Protein–Protein Interaction Data?
Sprinzak, E., Sattath, S., & Margalit, H. (2003) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-2836(03)00239-0 · Cited by 414
Metadata
- Authors
- Hishigaki, H., Nakai, K., Ono, T., Tanigami, A., & Takagi, T.
- Venue
- Yeast
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 523-531
- ISSN
- 0749-503X (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0061
- OpenAlex
- W2090766471
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.