Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18816389›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008

Predicting protein linkages in bacteria: which method is best depends on task.

Anis Karimpour-Fard, Sonia M Leach, Ryan T Gill, Lawrence E Hunter

Open access · goldAbstract 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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The EcoCyc database (2025).EcoSal Plus · 2025
    Review
  2. The EcoCyc Database (2023).EcoSal Plus · 2023
    Review
  3. The EcoCyc Database.EcoSal Plus · 2018
    Review
  4. Article
  5. The EcoCyc Database.EcoSal Plus · 2014
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Operon structure of Staphylococcus aureus.Nucleic acids research · 2010
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anis Karimpour-FardCenter for Computational Pharmacology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA. anis.karimpour-fard@uchsc.edu
Sonia M Leach
Ryan T Gill
Lawrence E Hunter
University of Colorado Denver · USUniversity of Colorado Boulder · US

Funding

Computational Bioscience Program Training GrantT15LM009451 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Katherina Kechris-Mays, Arjun Krishnan · 2007 to 2026
$11.7M
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
Ontologies and Biomedical Language ProcessingR01GM083649 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI HUNTER, LAWRENCE E · 2007 to 2010
$2.5M
BioMolecular Networks in Antibiotic Resistance EvolutionK25AI064338 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER · PI GILL, RYAN T · 2005 to 2008
$564k
NIAID NIH HHS K25 AI064338NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM083649NIGMS NIH HHS R01-GM083649NLM NIH HHS 5R01-LM009254NLM NIH HHS R01 LM008111NLM NIH HHS R01-LM-008111NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009254NLM NIH HHS T15 LM009451
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApplications of computational methods for predicting protein functional linkages are increasing. In recent years, several bacteria-specific methods for predicting linkages have been developed. The four major genomic context methods are: Gene cluster, Gene neighbor, Rosetta Stone, and Phylogenetic profiles. These methods have been shown to be powerful tools and this paper provides guidelines for when each method is appropriate by exploring different features of each method and potential improvements offered by their combination. We also review many previous treatments of these prediction methods, use the latest available annotations, and offer a number of new observations.

resultsUsing Escherichia coli K12 and Bacillus subtilis, linkage predictions made by each of these methods were evaluated against three benchmarks: functional categories defined by COG and KEGG, known pathways listed in EcoCyc, and known operons listed in RegulonDB. Each evaluated method had strengths and weaknesses, with no one method dominating all aspects of predictive ability studied. For functional categories, as previous studies have shown, the Rosetta Stone method was individually best at detecting linkages and predicting functions among proteins with shared KEGG categories while the Phylogenetic profile method was best for linkage detection and function prediction among proteins with common COG functions. Differences in performance under COG versus KEGG may be attributable to the presence of paralogs. Better function prediction was observed when using a weighted combination of linkages based on reliability versus using a simple unweighted union of the linkage sets. For pathway reconstruction, 99 complete metabolic pathways in E. coli K12 (out of the 209 known, non-trivial pathways) and 193 pathways with 50% of their proteins were covered by linkages from at least one method. Gene neighbor was most effective individually on pathway reconstruction, with 48 complete pathways reconstructed. For operon prediction, Gene cluster predicted completely 59% of the known operons in E. coli K12 and 88% (333/418)in B. subtilis. Comparing two versions of the E. coli K12 operon database, many of the unannotated predictions in the earlier version were updated to true predictions in the later version. Using only linkages found by both Gene Cluster and Gene Neighbor improved the precision of operon predictions. Additionally, as previous studies have shown, combining features based on intergenic region and protein function improved the specificity of operon prediction.

conclusionA common problem for computational methods is the generation of a large number of false positives that might be caused by an incomplete source of validation. By comparing two versions of a database, we demonstrated the dramatic differences on reported results. We used several benchmarks on which we have shown the comparative effectiveness of each prediction method, as well as provided guidelines as to which method is most appropriate for a given prediction task.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, BiologicalBacterial ProteinsComputer SimulationGene Expression ProfilingMultigene FamilySignal TransductionBacterial Proteins

Identifiers

PMID18816389
PMCPMC2570368
OpenAlexW2074009961

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.