Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18412966›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008

Improving protein function prediction methods with integrated literature data.

Aaron P Gabow, Sonia M Leach, William A Baumgartner, Lawrence E Hunter, Debra S Goldberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

5 authors.

Aaron P GabowDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, MS 8303, RC-1 South, 12801 East 17th Avenue, L18-6101, PO Box 6511, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. gabow@cbio.mskcc.org
Sonia M Leach
William A Baumgartner
Lawrence E Hunter
Debra S Goldberg

Funding

Technology Development for a MolBio Knowledge-BaseR01LM008111 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI HUNTER, LAWRENCE E · 2004 to 2021
$9.7M
Bio Text NLPR01LM009254 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI HUNTER, LAWRENCE E · 2006 to 2018
$5.9M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM008111NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009254
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetermining the function of uncharacterized proteins is a major challenge in the post-genomic era due to the problem's complexity and scale. Identifying a protein's function contributes to an understanding of its role in the involved pathways, its suitability as a drug target, and its potential for protein modifications. Several graph-theoretic approaches predict unidentified functions of proteins by using the functional annotations of better-characterized proteins in protein-protein interaction networks. We systematically consider the use of literature co-occurrence data, introduce a new method for quantifying the reliability of co-occurrence and test how performance differs across species. We also quantify changes in performance as the prediction algorithms annotate with increased specificity.

resultsWe find that including information on the co-occurrence of proteins within an abstract greatly boosts performance in the Functional Flow graph-theoretic function prediction algorithm in yeast, fly and worm. This increase in performance is not simply due to the presence of additional edges since supplementing protein-protein interactions with co-occurrence data outperforms supplementing with a comparably-sized genetic interaction dataset. Through the combination of protein-protein interactions and co-occurrence data, the neighborhood around unknown proteins is quickly connected to well-characterized nodes which global prediction algorithms can exploit. Our method for quantifying co-occurrence reliability shows superior performance to the other methods, particularly at threshold values around 10% which yield the best trade off between coverage and accuracy. In contrast, the traditional way of asserting co-occurrence when at least one abstract mentions both proteins proves to be the worst method for generating co-occurrence data, introducing too many false positives. Annotating the functions with greater specificity is harder, but co-occurrence data still proves beneficial.

conclusionCo-occurrence data is a valuable supplemental source for graph-theoretic function prediction algorithms. A rapidly growing literature corpus ensures that co-occurrence data is a readily-available resource for nearly every studied organism, particularly those with small protein interaction databases. Though arguably biased toward known genes, co-occurrence data provides critical additional links to well-studied regions in the interaction network that graph-theoretic function prediction algorithms can exploit.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicNatural Language ProcessingPeriodicals as TopicInformation Storage and RetrievalProtein Interaction MappingProteinsSensitivity and SpecificitySystems IntegrationProteins

Identifiers

PMID18412966
PMCPMC2375131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.