Cargando…
The value of protein structure classification information—Surveying the scientific literature
The Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP) and Class, Architecture, Topology, Homology (CATH) databases have been valuable resources for protein structure classification for over 20 years. Development of SCOP (version 1) concluded in June 2009 with SCOP 1.75. The SCOPe (SCOP–extended) database...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4609302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26313554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prot.24915 |
_version_ | 1782395784437694464 |
---|---|
author | Fox, Naomi K. Brenner, Steven E. Chandonia, John‐Marc |
author_facet | Fox, Naomi K. Brenner, Steven E. Chandonia, John‐Marc |
author_sort | Fox, Naomi K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP) and Class, Architecture, Topology, Homology (CATH) databases have been valuable resources for protein structure classification for over 20 years. Development of SCOP (version 1) concluded in June 2009 with SCOP 1.75. The SCOPe (SCOP–extended) database offers continued development of the classic SCOP hierarchy, adding over 33,000 structures. We have attempted to assess the impact of these two decade old resources and guide future development. To this end, we surveyed recent articles to learn how structure classification data are used. Of 571 articles published in 2012–2013 that cite SCOP, 439 actually use data from the resource. We found that the type of use was fairly evenly distributed among four top categories: A) study protein structure or evolution (27% of articles), B) train and/or benchmark algorithms (28% of articles), C) augment non‐SCOP datasets with SCOP classification (21% of articles), and D) examine the classification of one protein/a small set of proteins (22% of articles). Most articles described computational research, although 11% described purely experimental research, and a further 9% included both. We examined how CATH and SCOP were used in 158 articles that cited both databases: while some studies used only one dataset, the majority used data from both resources. Protein structure classification remains highly relevant for a diverse range of problems and settings. Proteins 2015; 83:2025–2038. © 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4609302 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46093022016-09-23 The value of protein structure classification information—Surveying the scientific literature Fox, Naomi K. Brenner, Steven E. Chandonia, John‐Marc Proteins Articles The Structural Classification of Proteins (SCOP) and Class, Architecture, Topology, Homology (CATH) databases have been valuable resources for protein structure classification for over 20 years. Development of SCOP (version 1) concluded in June 2009 with SCOP 1.75. The SCOPe (SCOP–extended) database offers continued development of the classic SCOP hierarchy, adding over 33,000 structures. We have attempted to assess the impact of these two decade old resources and guide future development. To this end, we surveyed recent articles to learn how structure classification data are used. Of 571 articles published in 2012–2013 that cite SCOP, 439 actually use data from the resource. We found that the type of use was fairly evenly distributed among four top categories: A) study protein structure or evolution (27% of articles), B) train and/or benchmark algorithms (28% of articles), C) augment non‐SCOP datasets with SCOP classification (21% of articles), and D) examine the classification of one protein/a small set of proteins (22% of articles). Most articles described computational research, although 11% described purely experimental research, and a further 9% included both. We examined how CATH and SCOP were used in 158 articles that cited both databases: while some studies used only one dataset, the majority used data from both resources. Protein structure classification remains highly relevant for a diverse range of problems and settings. Proteins 2015; 83:2025–2038. © 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-09-19 2015-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4609302/ /pubmed/26313554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prot.24915 Text en © 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Articles Fox, Naomi K. Brenner, Steven E. Chandonia, John‐Marc The value of protein structure classification information—Surveying the scientific literature |
title | The value of protein structure classification information—Surveying the scientific literature |
title_full | The value of protein structure classification information—Surveying the scientific literature |
title_fullStr | The value of protein structure classification information—Surveying the scientific literature |
title_full_unstemmed | The value of protein structure classification information—Surveying the scientific literature |
title_short | The value of protein structure classification information—Surveying the scientific literature |
title_sort | value of protein structure classification information—surveying the scientific literature |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4609302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26313554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prot.24915 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT foxnaomik thevalueofproteinstructureclassificationinformationsurveyingthescientificliterature AT brennerstevene thevalueofproteinstructureclassificationinformationsurveyingthescientificliterature AT chandoniajohnmarc thevalueofproteinstructureclassificationinformationsurveyingthescientificliterature AT foxnaomik valueofproteinstructureclassificationinformationsurveyingthescientificliterature AT brennerstevene valueofproteinstructureclassificationinformationsurveyingthescientificliterature AT chandoniajohnmarc valueofproteinstructureclassificationinformationsurveyingthescientificliterature |