Short Communication
How well are protein structures annotated in secondary databases?
Article first published online: 14 JUL 2005
DOI: 10.1002/prot.20520
Copyright © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Issue
1097-0134/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=d817e79b67ba6cacf8bdcce1a819c04de300a7e3)
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
Volume 60, Issue 4, pages 571–576, 1 September 2005
Additional Information
How to Cite
Rother, K., Michalsky, E. and Leser, U. (2005), How well are protein structures annotated in secondary databases?. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 60: 571–576. doi: 10.1002/prot.20520
Publication History
- Issue published online: 15 AUG 2005
- Article first published online: 14 JUL 2005
- Manuscript Accepted: 8 FEB 2005
- Manuscript Revised: 25 JAN 2005
- Manuscript Received: 1 SEP 2004
Funded by
- German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Grant Number: 0312705B
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- cross-references;
- data quality;
- database annotation;
- databases;
- protein structure
Abstract
We investigated to what extent Protein Data Bank (PDB) entries are annotated with second-party information based on existing cross-references between PDB and 15 other databases. We report 2 interesting findings. First, there is a clear “annotation gap” for structures less than 7 years old for secondary databases that are manually curated. Second, the examined databases overlap with each other quite well, dividing the PDB into 2 well-annotated thirds and one poorly annotated third. Both observations should be taken into account in any study depending on the selection of protein structures by their annotation. Proteins 2005. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

1097-0134/asset/PROT_centre.gif?v=1&s=77b56b1f2cdaba74cb3bb149bd9b029cd8803cdb)