ArticleBMC bioinformatics2010
PoGO: Prediction of Gene Ontology terms for fungal proteins.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Gated Recurrent Unit based architecture for recognizing ontology concepts from biological literature.BioData mining · 2022Article
- Protein function prediction with gene ontology: from traditional to deep learning models.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Review on the Computational Genome Annotation of Sequences Obtained by Next-Generation Sequencing.Biology · 2020Review
- Genome-wide identification and comprehensive analyses of the kinomes in four pathogenic microsporidia species.PloS one · 2014Article
- Matrix factorization-based data fusion for gene function prediction in baker's yeast and slime mold.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2014Article
- Predictability of gene ontology slim-terms from primary structure information in Embryophyta plant proteins.BMC bioinformatics · 2013Article
- CvManGO, a method for leveraging computational predictions to improve literature-based Gene Ontology annotations.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomated protein function prediction methods are the only practical approach for assigning functions to genes obtained from model organisms. Many of the previously reported function annotation methods are of limited utility for fungal protein annotation. They are often trained only to one species, are not available for high-volume data processing, or require the use of data derived by experiments such as microarray analysis. To meet the increasing need for high throughput, automated annotation of fungal genomes, we have developed a tool for annotating fungal protein sequences with terms from the Gene Ontology.
resultsWe describe a classifier called PoGO (Prediction of Gene Ontology terms) that uses statistical pattern recognition methods to assign Gene Ontology (GO) terms to proteins from filamentous fungi. PoGO is organized as a meta-classifier in which each evidence source (sequence similarity, protein domains, protein structure and biochemical properties) is used to train independent base-level classifiers. The outputs of the base classifiers are used to train a meta-classifier, which provides the final assignment of GO terms. An independent classifier is trained for each GO term, making the system amenable to updating, without having to re-train the whole system. The resulting system is robust. It provides better accuracy and can assign GO terms to a higher percentage of unannotated protein sequences than other methods that we tested.
conclusionsOur annotation system overcomes many of the shortcomings that we found in other methods. We also provide a web server where users can submit protein sequences to be annotated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.