4.8 Article

Protein Ontology (PRO): enhancing and scaling up the representation of protein entities

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 D1, 页码 D339-D346

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw1075

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [R01GM080646]
  2. National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Diseases [HHSN272201200028C]
  3. National Human Genome Research Institute [U41HG 003751, HG000330]
  4. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [1UL1TR001412]
  5. National Institutes of Health [R01GM080646]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Protein Ontology (PRO; http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/pr) formally defines and describes taxon-specific and taxon-neutral protein-related entities in three major areas: proteins related by evolution; proteins produced from a given gene; and protein-containing complexes. PRO thus serves as a tool for referencing protein entities at any level of specificity. To enhance this ability, and to facilitate the comparison of such entities described in different resources, we developed a standardized representation of pro-teoforms using UniProtKB as a sequence reference and PSI-MOD as a post-translational modification reference. We illustrate its use in facilitating an alignment between PRO and Reactome protein entities. We also address issues of scalability, describing our first steps into the use of text mining to identify protein-related entities, the large-scale import of pro-teoform information from expert curated resources, and our ability to dynamically generate PRO terms. Web views for individual terms are now more informative about closely-related terms, including for example an interactive multiple sequence alignment. Finally, we describe recent improvement in semantic utility, with PRO now represented in OWL and as a SPARQL endpoint. These developments will further support the anticipated growth of PRO and facilitate discoverability of and allow aggregation of data relating to protein entities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据