3.9 Review

TRANSPATH® -: a high quality database focused on signal transduction

期刊

COMPARATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 163-168

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1002/cfg.386

关键词

signal transduction; database; quality assessment; TRANSPATH; protein interaction; experimental evidence; network analysis; gene expression array

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TRANSPATH(R) can either be used as an encyclopedia, for both specific and general information on signal transduction, or can serve as a network analyser. Therefore, three modules have been created: the first one is the data, which have been manually extracted, mostly from the primary literature; the second is PathwayBuilder(TM), which provides several different types of network visualization and hence faciliates understanding; the third is ArrayAnalyzer(TM), which is particularly suited to gene expression array interpretation, and is able to identify key molecules within signalling networks (potential drug targets). These key molecules could be responsible for the coordinated regulation of downstream events. Manual data extraction focuses on direct reactions between signalling molecules and the experimental evidence for them, including species of genes/proteins used in individual experiments, experimental systems, materials and methods. This combination of materials and methods is used in TRANSPATH(R) to assign a quality value to each experimentally proven reaction, which reflects the probability that this reaction would happen under physiological conditions. Another important feature in TRANSPATH(R) is the inclusion of transcription factor-gene relations, which are transferred from TRANSFAC(R), a database focused on transcription regulation and transcription factors. Since interactions between molecules are mainly direct, this allows a complete and stepwise pathway reconstruction from ligands to regulated genes. More information is available at www.biobase.de/pages/products/databases.html. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

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

3.9
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