| Literature DB >> 24270789 |
Darren A Natale1, Cecilia N Arighi, Judith A Blake, Carol J Bult, Karen R Christie, Julie Cowart, Peter D'Eustachio, Alexander D Diehl, Harold J Drabkin, Olivia Helfer, Hongzhan Huang, Anna Maria Masci, Jia Ren, Natalia V Roberts, Karen Ross, Alan Ruttenberg, Veronica Shamovsky, Barry Smith, Meher Shruti Yerramalla, Jian Zhang, Aisha AlJanahi, Irem Çelen, Cynthia Gan, Mengxi Lv, Emily Schuster-Lezell, Cathy H Wu.
Abstract
The Protein Ontology (PRO; http://proconsortium.org) formally defines protein entities and explicitly represents their major forms and interrelations. Protein entities represented in PRO corresponding to single amino acid chains are categorized by level of specificity into family, gene, sequence and modification metaclasses, and there is a separate metaclass for protein complexes. All metaclasses also have organism-specific derivatives. PRO complements established sequence databases such as UniProtKB, and interoperates with other biomedical and biological ontologies such as the Gene Ontology (GO). PRO relates to UniProtKB in that PRO's organism-specific classes of proteins encoded by a specific gene correspond to entities documented in UniProtKB entries. PRO relates to the GO in that PRO's representations of organism-specific protein complexes are subclasses of the organism-agnostic protein complex terms in the GO Cellular Component Ontology. The past few years have seen growth and changes to the PRO, as well as new points of access to the data and new applications of PRO in immunology and proteomics. Here we describe some of these developments.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24270789 PMCID: PMC3964965 DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1173
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nucleic Acids Res ISSN: 0305-1048 Impact factor: 16.971
Figure 1.Illustration of PRO categories and relation to external resources. Categories (aka metaclasses) are listed along the top, with example terms for IRF5 (interferon regulatory factor 5) shown directly below. Circles denote protein terms, whereas squares denote protein complex terms. For each, blue indicates terms that are defined in an organism-agnostic way; green indicates terms that are organism-specific. Solid lines show is_a relationships and broken lines show has_component relationships (though the complexes in this example have components in the modification category, this need not be the case). Filled circles and filled squares indicate how UniProtKB and GO, respectively, fit into the hierarchy. Not all terms and relationships are shown. IRF, interferon regulatory factor; Phos, phosphorylated; m, mouse; h, human; iso, isoform; BMv, bone marrow variant.
Portion of antibody registry
Shading in the marker column indicates that the named marker includes the shown forms. For example, CD45RA is one isoform of CD45. Shading in the clone column indicates that the clone recognizes the shown subtypes. Shading in the PRO column indicates that the shown classes are subtypes. The Scope column indicates what forms are included in the PRO class. Not all alternative names and clones are shown.
Figure 2.Display for protein products of the mouse Irf8 gene. Top panel, defined PRO terms; Middle panel, GO-centric view of annotations; Bottom panel, PRO-centric view of the annotations.
Figure 3.Cytoscape view of BUB1:BUB1B complexes. The is_a relationship between child and parent in the PRO hierarchy and the has_component relationship between complexes and their components are shown by black arrows and blue dotted arrows, respectively. Clicking on a node (e.g. frog-BUB1B/Phos:2) brings a pop-up box that provides details and allows additional actions. Only a subset of nodes is shown, which have been rearranged for clarity.