4.3 Article

iProteinDB: An Integrative Database of Drosophila Post-translational Modifications

期刊

G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 1-11

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/g3.118.200637

关键词

Drosophila; post-translational modification; phosphoproteomics

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute of General Medical Sciences [R01 GM 067761]
  2. National Institutes of Health [5R01DK088718, 5P01CA120964, 5R01GM084947, 5R01GM067761]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Post-translational modification (PTM) serves as a regulatory mechanism for protein function, influencing their stability, interactions, activity and localization, and is critical in many signaling pathways. The best characterized PTM is phosphorylation, whereby a phosphate is added to an acceptor residue, most commonly serine, threonine and tyrosine in metazoans. As proteins are often phosphorylated at multiple sites, identifying those sites that are important for function is a challenging problem. Considering that any given phosphorylation site might be non-functional, prioritizing evolutionarily conserved phosphosites provides a general strategy to identify the putative functional sites. To facilitate the identification of conserved phosphosites, we generated a large-scale phosphoproteomics dataset from Drosophila embryos collected from six closely-related species. We built iProteinDB (https://www.flyrnai.org/tools/iproteindb/), a resource integrating these data with other high-throughput PTM datasets, including vertebrates, and manually curated information for Drosophila. At iProteinDB, scientists can view the PTM landscape for any Drosophila protein and identify predicted functional phosphosites based on a comparative analysis of data from closely-related Drosophila species. Further, iProteinDB enables comparison of PTM data from Drosophila to that of orthologous proteins from other model organisms, including human, mouse, rat, Xenopus tropicalis, Danio rerio, and Caenorhabditis elegans.

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

4.3
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