In the last decades intrinsic disorder has emerged as a prevalent property amongst proteins expressed by organisms in all kingdoms of life. Improving the characterization of protein disorder will allow us to better understand its role in nature and illuminate the Dark Proteome. In our article number, we discuss the reasons to establish standard‐based guidelines to evaluate protein disorder predictions with rigor and reproducibility.

On the need to develop guidelines for characterizing and reporting intrinsic disorder in proteins

In the last decades intrinsic disorder has emerged as a prevalent property amongst proteins expressed by organisms in all kingdoms of life. Improving the characterization of protein disorder will allow us to better understand its role in nature and illuminate the Dark Proteome. In our article number, we discuss the reasons to establish standard‐based guidelines to evaluate protein disorder predictions with rigor and reproducibility.

On the need to develop guidelines for characterizing and reporting intrinsic disorder in proteins

Abstract

Since the early 2000s, numerous computational tools have been created and used to predict intrinsic disorder in proteins. At present, the output from these algorithms is difficult to interpret in the absence of standards or references for comparison. There are many reasons to establish a set of standard‐based guidelines to evaluate computational protein disorder predictions. This viewpoint explores a handful of these reasons, including standardizing nomenclature to improve communication, rigor and reproducibility, and making it easier for newcomers to enter the field. An approach for reporting predicted disorder in single proteins with respect to whole proteomes is discussed. The suggestions are not intended to be formulaic; they should be viewed as a starting point to establish guidelines for interpreting and reporting computational protein disorder predictions.

Publication
PROTEOMICS 19, 1800415