English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Scaffold proteins are known for being crucial regulators of various cellular functions by assembling multiple proteins involved in signaling and metabolic pathways. Identification of scaffold proteins and the study of their molecular mechanisms can open a new aspect of cellular systemic regulation and the results can be applied in the field of medicine and engineering. Despite being highlighted as the regulatory roles of dozens of scaffold proteins, there was only one known computational approach carried out so far to find scaffold proteins from interactomes. However, there were limitations in finding diverse types of scaffold proteins because their criteria were restricted to the classical scaffold proteins. In this paper, we will suggest a systematic approach to predict massive scaffold proteins from interactomes and to characterize the roles of scaffold proteins comprehensively.    Results  From a total of 10,419 basic scaffold protein candidates in protein interactomes, we classified them into three classes according to the structural evidences for scaffolding, such as domain architectures, domain interactions and protein complexes. Finally, we could define 2716 highly reliable scaffold protein candidates and their characterized functional features. To assess the accuracy of our prediction, the gold standard positive and negative data sets were constructed. We prepared 158 gold standard positive data and 844 gold standard negative data based on the functional information from Gene Ontology consortium. The precision, sensitivity and specificity of our testing was 80.3, 51.0, and 98.5 % respectively. Through the function enrichment analysis of highly reliable scaffold proteins, we could confirm the significantly enriched functions that are related to scaffold protein binding. We also identified functional association between scaffold proteins and their recruited proteins. Furthermore, we checked that the disease association of scaffold proteins is higher than kinases.    Conclusions  In conclusion, we could predict larger volume of scaffold proteins and analyzed their functional characteristics. Deeper understandings about the roles of scaffold proteins from this study will provide a higher opportunity to find therapeutic or engineering applications of scaffold proteins using their functional characteristics.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12859-016-1079-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prediction of scaffold proteins based on protein interaction and domain architectures