Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17659089›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2007

Applying negative rule mining to improve genome annotation.

Irena I Artamonova, Goar Frishman, Dmitrij Frishman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Irena I ArtamonovaInstitute for Bioinformatics, GSF-National Research Center for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, Germany. irena.artamonova@gsf.de <irena.artamonova@gsf.de>
Goar Frishman
Dmitrij Frishman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnsupervised annotation of proteins by software pipelines suffers from very high error rates. Spurious functional assignments are usually caused by unwarranted homology-based transfer of information from existing database entries to the new target sequences. We have previously demonstrated that data mining in large sequence annotation databanks can help identify annotation items that are strongly associated with each other, and that exceptions from strong positive association rules often point to potential annotation errors. Here we investigate the applicability of negative association rule mining to revealing erroneously assigned annotation items.

resultsAlmost all exceptions from strong negative association rules are connected to at least one wrong attribute in the feature combination making up the rule. The fraction of annotation features flagged by this approach as suspicious is strongly enriched in errors and constitutes about 0.6% of the whole body of the similarity-transferred annotation in the PEDANT genome database. Positive rule mining does not identify two thirds of these errors. The approach based on exceptions from negative rules is much more specific than positive rule mining, but its coverage is significantly lower.

conclusionMining of both negative and positive association rules is a potent tool for finding significant trends in protein annotation and flagging doubtful features for further inspection.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenomeAmino Acid SequenceComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticDatabases, ProteinInformation Storage and RetrievalProteinsProtein Structure, SecondaryProtein Structure, TertiarySequence Analysis, ProteinSoftwareProteins

Identifiers

PMID17659089
PMCPMC1940032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.