PubMed:29587633 / 1169-1735 JSONTXT

{"project":"GoldHamster","denotations":[{"id":"T71","span":{"begin":44,"end":47},"obj":"1799649"},{"id":"T67","span":{"begin":44,"end":47},"obj":"CVCL_R927"},{"id":"T66","span":{"begin":44,"end":47},"obj":"PR:P49903"},{"id":"T70","span":{"begin":44,"end":47},"obj":"PR:000014643"},{"id":"T73","span":{"begin":44,"end":47},"obj":"PR:Q8S948"},{"id":"T68","span":{"begin":44,"end":47},"obj":"GO:0046524"},{"id":"T69","span":{"begin":44,"end":47},"obj":"D016750"},{"id":"T72","span":{"begin":44,"end":47},"obj":"C535540"},{"id":"T74","span":{"begin":246,"end":254},"obj":"CHEBI:36080"},{"id":"T75","span":{"begin":292,"end":295},"obj":"CHEBI:85361"},{"id":"T77","span":{"begin":451,"end":468},"obj":"D004272"},{"id":"T78","span":{"begin":451,"end":468},"obj":"SO:0001032"},{"id":"T76","span":{"begin":451,"end":468},"obj":"GO:0000262"},{"id":"T83","span":{"begin":499,"end":505},"obj":"37565"},{"id":"T84","span":{"begin":499,"end":505},"obj":"SO:0001513"},{"id":"T86","span":{"begin":560,"end":565},"obj":"D004272"},{"id":"T87","span":{"begin":560,"end":565},"obj":"SO:0001032"},{"id":"T85","span":{"begin":560,"end":565},"obj":"GO:0000262"}],"text":"In silico analyses suggests the presence of SPs and SCSs and provides some insight into possible function(s) of these novel ORFs. The assessed confidence in these structures and functions was highly variable, possibly due to the novelty of these proteins. The number and topology of putative TMs appear to be maintained among both F- and H-ORFs, however, this is not the case for M-ORFs. There does not appear to be a typical control region in H-type mitochondrial DNA, especially given the loss of tandem repeats in unassigned regions when compared to F-type mtDNA."}

{"project":"PubMed_Structured_Abstracts","denotations":[{"id":"T2","span":{"begin":0,"end":566},"obj":"RESULTS"}],"text":"In silico analyses suggests the presence of SPs and SCSs and provides some insight into possible function(s) of these novel ORFs. The assessed confidence in these structures and functions was highly variable, possibly due to the novelty of these proteins. The number and topology of putative TMs appear to be maintained among both F- and H-ORFs, however, this is not the case for M-ORFs. There does not appear to be a typical control region in H-type mitochondrial DNA, especially given the loss of tandem repeats in unassigned regions when compared to F-type mtDNA."}

{"project":"Goldhamster2_Cellosaurus","denotations":[{"id":"T9","span":{"begin":44,"end":47},"obj":"CVCL_4920|Spontaneously_immortalized_cell_line|Sus scrofa"},{"id":"T10","span":{"begin":44,"end":47},"obj":"CVCL_R927|Spontaneously_immortalized_cell_line|Lateolabrax japonicus"},{"id":"T11","span":{"begin":416,"end":417},"obj":"CVCL_6479|Finite_cell_line|Mus musculus"}],"text":"In silico analyses suggests the presence of SPs and SCSs and provides some insight into possible function(s) of these novel ORFs. The assessed confidence in these structures and functions was highly variable, possibly due to the novelty of these proteins. The number and topology of putative TMs appear to be maintained among both F- and H-ORFs, however, this is not the case for M-ORFs. There does not appear to be a typical control region in H-type mitochondrial DNA, especially given the loss of tandem repeats in unassigned regions when compared to F-type mtDNA."}