CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 542

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Protein interaction mapping: A Drosophila case study

Formstecher, Etienne, Aresta, Sandra, Collura, Vincent, Hamburger, Alexandre, Meil, Alain, Trehin, Alexandra, Reverdy, Céline, Betin, Virginie, Maire, Sophie, Brun, Christine, Jacq, Bernard, Arpin, Monique, Bellaiche, Yohanns, Bellusci, Saverio, Benaroch, Philippe, Bornens, Michel, Chanet, Roland, Chavrier, Philippe, Delattre, Olivier, Doye, Valérie, Fehon, Richard, Faye, Gérard, Galli, Thierry, Girault, Jean-Antoine, Goud, Bruno, de Gunzburg, Jean, Johannes, Ludger, Junier, Marie-Pierre, Mirouse, Vincent, Mukherjee, Ashim, Papadopoulo, Dora, Perez, Franck, Plessis, Anne, Rossé, Carine, Saule, Simon, Stoppa-Lyonnet, Dominique, Vincent, Alain, White, Michael, Legrain, Pierre, Wojcik, Jérôme, Camonis, Jacques, Daviet, Laurent·2005·Genome Research
DOI 10.1101/gr.2659105
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Drosophila(fruit fly) model system has been instrumental in our current understanding of human biology, development, and diseases. Here, we used a high-throughput yeast two-hybrid (Y2H)-based technology to screen 102 bait proteins from Drosophila melanogaster, most of them orthologous to human cancer-related and/or signaling proteins, against high-complexity fly cDNA libraries. More than 2300 protein-protein interactions (PPI) were identified, of which 710 are of high confidence. The computation of a reliability score for each protein-protein interaction and the systematic identification of the interacting domain combined with a prediction of structural/functional motifs allow the elaboration of known complexes and the identification of new ones. The full data set can be visualized using a graphical Web interface, the PIMRider (http://pim.hybrigenics.com), and is also accessible in the PSI standard Molecular Interaction data format. Our fly Protein Interaction Map (PIM) is surprisingly different from the one recently proposed by Giot et al. with little overlap between the two data sets. Analysis of the differences in data sets and methods suggests alternative strategies to enhance the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the post-genomic generation of broad-scale protein interaction maps.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/gr.2659105

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • NCBI Gene collates data from three prior interactome studies.

    “Interacting partners in Drosophila melanogaster were identified in NCBI Gene, which collates data from three prior interactome studies47–49.”

    From Endosomal PI(3)P regulation by the COMMD/CCDC22/CCDC93 (CCC) complex controls membrane protein recycling (2019) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Discussion identifies this paper as a Drosophila interactome study reporting 2,300 interactions, and the comparison section discusses three large-scale fly screens. But the paper does not say that NCBI Gene collates data from those studies; its Discussion instead names FlyBase and other repositories for its deposited interactions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Interaction experiments by unbiased screens in mammalian cells and protein-protein interaction studies in Drosophila produced interactome data that in aggregate includes all the proteins identified experimentally in our mass spectrometry data, including FAM45A as a CCC and retriever binding protein.

    “interaction experiments by unbiased screens in mammalian cells46, as well as protein–protein interaction studies in Drosophila47–49, produced interactome data that in aggregate includes all the proteins identified experimentally in our mass spectrometry data, including the identification of FAM45A as a CCC and retriever binding protein”

    From Endosomal PI(3)P regulation by the COMMD/CCDC22/CCDC93 (CCC) complex controls membrane protein recycling (2019) · cites this paper as [49]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. 10.1126/science.287.5461.2185 · DOI
  2. 10.1093/nar/29.1.37 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1002/0470857897.ch6 · DOI
  4. 10.1093/emboj/cdf689 · DOI
  5. Celniker, S.E., Wheeler, D.A., Kronmiller, B., Carlson, J.W., Halpern, A., Patel, S., Adams, M., Champe, M., Dugan, S.P., Frise, E., et al. 2002. Finishing a whole-genome shotgun: Release 3 of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome sequence. Genome Biol. 3: RESEARCH0079. · DOI
  6. 10.1101/gr.2334104 · DOI
  7. 10.1101/gr.8.3.175 · DOI
  8. 10.1101/gr.8.3.175 · DOI
  9. 10.1038/ng0797-277 · DOI
  10. 2002, Methods Enzymol., 350, 513, 10.1016/S0076-6879(02)50982-4 · DOI
  11. 10.1038/415141a · DOI
  12. 10.1038/ng776 · DOI
  13. 10.1126/science.1090289 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1093/nar/gkg466 · DOI
  15. 10.1038/nbt926 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1101/gr.9.9.868 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1073/pnas.061034498 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1016/S0960-9822(02)00683-8 · DOI
  19. 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4315 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1186/gb-2004-5-9-r63 · DOI
  21. 10.1126/science.1091403 · DOI
  22. Misra, S., Crosby, M.A., Mungall, C.J., Matthews, B.B., Campbell, K.S., Hradecky, P., Huang, Y., Kaminker, J.S., Millburn, G.H., Prochnik, S.E., et al. 2002. Annotation of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome: A systematic review. Genome Biol. 3: RESEARCH0083. · DOI
  23. 10.1142/S0129065797000537 · DOI
  24. 10.1038/35051615 · DOI
  25. 10.1101/SQB.1997.062.01.041 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.cub.2003.11.007 · DOI
  27. 10.1186/gb-2004-5-12-r96 · DOI
  28. 10.1074/mcp.M400048-MCP200 · DOI
  29. 10.1038/35001009 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1016/S0076-6879(95)55036-4 · DOI
  31. 10.1074/jbc.C000463200 · DOI
  32. 10.1126/science.287.5450.116 · DOI
  33. 10.1128/MCB.22.3.916-926.2001 · DOI
  34. 10.1126/science.1090772 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1016/S0022-2836(02)01009-4 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Formstecher, E., Aresta, S., Collura, V., Hamburger, A., Meil, A., Trehin, A., Reverdy, C., Betin, V., Maire, S., Brun, C., Jacq, B., Arpin, M., Bellaiche, Y., Bellusci, S., Benaroch, P., Bornens, M., Chanet, R., Chavrier, P., Delattre, O., Doye, V., Fehon, R., Faye, G., Galli, T., Girault, J.-A., Goud, B., de Gunzburg, J., Johannes, L., Junier, M.-P., Mirouse, V., Mukherjee, A., Papadopoulo, D., Perez, F., Plessis, A., Rossé, C., Saule, S., Stoppa-Lyonnet, D., Vincent, A., White, M., Legrain, P., Wojcik, J., Camonis, J., & Daviet, L.
Venue
Genome Research
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Published
2005-02-14
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
376-384
ISSN
1088-9051
DOI
10.1101/gr.2659105
Cited by
542
References
2
Language
en

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