Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18834495›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2008

Overview of the protein-protein interaction annotation extraction task of BioCreative II.

Martin Krallinger, Florian Leitner, Carlos Rodriguez-Penagos, Alfonso Valencia

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
118citing papers in PubMed
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

118 citing papers in PubMed, 311 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. DiMB-RE: mining the scientific literature for diet-microbiome associations.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  3. Artificial Intelligence Methods in Infection Biology Research.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The overview of the BioRED (Biomedical Relation Extraction Dataset) track at BioCreative VIII.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024
    Article
  11. Towards discovery: an end-to-end system for uncovering novel biomedical relations.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

58 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Martin KrallingerStructural Biology and BioComputing Programme, Spanish Nacional Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), Madrid, Spain.
Florian Leitner
Carlos Rodriguez-Penagos
Alfonso Valencia
Spanish National Cancer Research Centre · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe biomedical literature is the primary information source for manual protein-protein interaction annotations. Text-mining systems have been implemented to extract binary protein interactions from articles, but a comprehensive comparison between the different techniques as well as with manual curation was missing.

resultsWe designed a community challenge, the BioCreative II protein-protein interaction (PPI) task, based on the main steps of a manual protein interaction annotation workflow. It was structured into four distinct subtasks related to: (a) detection of protein interaction-relevant articles; (b) extraction and normalization of protein interaction pairs; (c) retrieval of the interaction detection methods used; and (d) retrieval of actual text passages that provide evidence for protein interactions. A total of 26 teams submitted runs for at least one of the proposed subtasks. In the interaction article detection subtask, the top scoring team reached an F-score of 0.78. In the interaction pair extraction and mapping to SwissProt, a precision of 0.37 (with recall of 0.33) was obtained. For associating articles with an experimental interaction detection method, an F-score of 0.65 was achieved. As for the retrieval of the PPI passages best summarizing a given protein interaction in full-text articles, 19% of the submissions returned by one of the runs corresponded to curator-selected sentences. Curators extracted only the passages that best summarized a given interaction, implying that many of the automatically extracted ones could contain interaction information but did not correspond to the most informative sentences.

conclusionThe BioCreative II PPI task is the first attempt to compare the performance of text-mining tools specific for each of the basic steps of the PPI extraction pipeline. The challenges identified range from problems in full-text format conversion of articles to difficulties in detecting interactor protein pairs and then linking them to their database records. Some limitations were also encountered when using a single (and possibly incomplete) reference database for protein normalization or when limiting search for interactor proteins to co-occurrence within a single sentence, when a mention might span neighboring sentences. Finally, distinguishing between novel, experimentally verified interactions (annotation relevant) and previously known interactions adds additional complexity to these tasks.

Indexed as

Societies, ScientificAnimalsComputational BiologyHumansMiceProtein Interaction Mapping

Identifiers

PMID18834495
PMCPMC2559988
OpenAlexW2064030835

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.