Cited by 2,271Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies

The Database of Interacting Proteins: 2004 update

Open access
Salwinski, L.·2004·Nucleic Acids Research

Abstract

The Database of Interacting Proteins (http://dip.doe-mbi.ucla.edu) aims to integrate the diverse body of experimental evidence on protein-protein interactions into a single, easily accessible online database. Because the reliability of experimental evidence varies widely, methods of quality assessment have been developed and utilized to identify the most reliable subset of the interactions. This CORE set can be used as a reference when evaluating the reliability of high-throughput protein-protein interaction data sets, for development of prediction methods, as well as in the studies of the properties of protein interaction networks.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/nar/gkh086

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SPRING-score and Z-score cutoffs were trained to optimize MCC for classifying interacting versus noninteracting protein pairs on a dataset of 1732 structurally characterized PPI pairs and 4117 noninteracting pairs.

    “The Z-score and SPRING-score cutoffs were trained to optimize the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of classifying interacting versus noninteracting protein pairs on a dataset consisting of 1732 structurally characterized PPI pairs from the SPRING dimer template database and 4117 pairs of noninteracting proteins from the Database of Interacting Proteins (DIP).51”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salwinski, L.
Venue
Nucleic Acids Research
Published
2004-01-01
Volume
32
Issue
90001
Pages
449D-451
ISSN
  • 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-4962
OpenAlex
W2130687290
Cited by
2,271
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 116 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 94 · 2017: 101 · 2016: 101 · 2015: 108 · 2014: 87 · 2013: 137 · 2012: 160
FWCI
28.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nucleic Acids Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Keywords
protein-protein interaction, core set, high-throughput interaction data, protein-protein interaction network, interaction prediction
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Protein Binding, Proteins, Reproducibility of Results, Information Storage and Retrieval, Computational Biology, Internet, Databases, Protein, Macromolecular Substances

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