Imoto et al. [ 16] described different ways to specify knowledge about PPI, documented regulatory relationships and well-studied pathways as prior information.
This gold standard contained 226 PPI-document pairs from 71 unique documents.
We took the union of all the PPIs documented in these databases and represented them as networks for each of the four species.
STRING, a popular web-based tool that creates and displays protein networks based on PPIs documented in many curated databases also does not incorporate phosphorylation state information when representing protein-binding events.
Previous studies in healthy, nonobese, H.pylori-negative subjects using similar methodology to compare the antisecretory effects of single doses of various PPIs documented similar findings of increased mean intragastric pH, increased percentage of time with pH > 3 or > 4, and decreased intragastric [H+] with rabeprazole compared with omeprazole, lanzoprazole or pantoprazole [ 24, 25].
This was the first study to examine whether plans for patient and public involvement (PPI), as documented in trialists' grant applications, were subsequently implemented.
In those databases, the PPIs were documented experimentally by genome wide two-hybrid screen, immune precipitation, affinity binding, antibody blockage, and so on.
Various types of protein-protein interactions (PPI) have been documented, ranging from PPI that bring about assembly of stable protein complexes to PPI that cause transient modifications (e.g., phosphorylation) of target proteins.
There were five trials for which it was not possible to determine whether all documented PPI plans had been fully implemented or not.
Additionally, the DIP set contained PPIs curated from documents with experimental evidence that may not be well represented in our overall PLOS corpus.
