The Database of Interacting Proteins: 2004 update

By Lukasz Salwínski, ChristopherA. Miller, Adam J. Smith, Frank K. Pettit, J. Bowie, David S. Eisenberg. Nucleic Acids Res., 2004

1,997 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/20740b17fd91394cfdf17ebf1c227312d6bb56cb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Structure and dynamics of molecular networks: A novel paradigm of drug discovery: A comprehensive review (2012, background): “…from expression patterns http://www.bioprofiling.de Antonov et al., 2009 DIP Experimental protein–protein interaction data http://dip.doe-mbi.ucla.edu Salwinski et al., 2004 DomainGraph Cytoscape plug-in for domain–domain interaction analysis http://domaingraph.bioinf.mpi-inf.mpg.de Emig et al.,…”
The STRING database in 2023: protein–protein association networks and functional enrichment analyses for any sequenced genome of interest (2022, background): “They are imported from primary database repositories: BioGRID (37), DIP (38), PDB (39), as well as IntAct and its partner databases in the IMEx consortium (40).”
Stable Community Cores in Complex Networks (2012, methodology): “Proteome network: We used this metric to evaluate the significance of identified cores on the Baker’s yeast proteome network [18]: nodes are proteins and there is a link when two proteins have been shown to interact.”
CFinder: locating cliques and overlapping modules in biological networks (2006, background): “These modules often overlap with each other and form a network of their own, in which nodes (links) represent the modules (overlaps).”
CytoNCA: A cytoscape plugin for centrality analysis and evaluation of protein interaction networks (2015, methodology): “We tested the core network of baker ’ s yeast retrieved from the database of interacting proteins (Salwinski et al., 2004), which contains 2016 nodes and 4857 edges.”
MPact: the MIPS protein interaction resource on yeast (2005, background): “CYGD (10), DIP (11), BIND (12), MINT (13) and HPRD (14) are important resources of this kind.”
MINT, the molecular interaction database: 2009 update (2009, background): “The consortium currently comprises four active members: DIP (10), Intact (11), MatrixDb (12) and MINT (13).”
HINT: High-quality protein interactomes and their applications in understanding human disease (2012, methodology): “Although there are numerous databases [9-16] that try to systematically curate the entire repository of interactions for different organisms, there has been very little effort in filtering out unreliable ones.”
Broadening the horizon – level 2.5 of the HUPO-PSI format for molecular interactions (2007, unknown): “5 format from DIP, IntAct, MINT, MIPS, BioGRID and the HPRD databases.”
Structure-based prediction of protein-protein interactions on a genome-wide scale (2012, methodology): “For yeast, we used the interactions databases: MIPS [27], DIP [28], BioGRID [29], IntAct [30] and MINT [31].”
MINT: the Molecular INTeraction database (2006, background): “net/), including DIP (3), IntAct (1), MPact (4) and BIND (5).”
STRING: known and predicted protein–protein associations, integrated and transferred across organisms (2004, background): “Several databases exist, whose main purpose is to collect and curate direct experimental evidence about protein–protein interactions (1–4).”