Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21411447›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2011

Using computational predictions to improve literature-based Gene Ontology annotations: a feasibility study.

Maria C Costanzo, Julie Park, Rama Balakrishnan, J Michael Cherry, Eurie L Hong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Strategies for Pathway Analysis Using GWAS and WGS Data.Current protocols in human genetics · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. BC4GO: a full-text corpus for the BioCreative IV GO task.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2014
    Article
  6. Assessment of community-submitted ontology annotations from a novel database-journal partnership.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2012
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Maria C CostanzoDepartment of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5120, USA.
Julie Park
Rama Balakrishnan
J Michael Cherry
Eurie L Hong

Funding

Resource ProjectU41HG002273 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI THOMAS, PAUL D. · 2012 to 2021
$34.7M
Gene Ontology ConsortiumP41HG002273 · NHGRI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI BLAKE, JUDITH A · 2004 to 2011
$27.4M
GENOMIC DATABASE FOR THE YEAST SACCHAROMYCESP41HG001315 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHERRY, J. MICHAEL · 1995 to 2010
$27.1M
Genomic Resource for the Yeast SaccharomycesU41HG001315 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHERRY, J. MICHAEL · 2011 to 2020
$26.4M
GENE ONTOLOGY CONSORTIUMR01HG002273 · NHGRI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI BLAKE, JUDITH A · 2001 to 2003
$5.8M
NHGRI NIH HHS HG001315NHGRI NIH HHS HG002273NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG001315NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG002273NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002273NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG001315NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG002273
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Annotation using Gene Ontology (GO) terms is one of the most important ways in which biological information about specific gene products can be expressed in a searchable, computable form that may be compared across genomes and organisms. Because literature-based GO annotations are often used to propagate functional predictions between related proteins, their accuracy is critically important. We present a strategy that employs a comparison of literature-based annotations with computational predictions to identify and prioritize genes whose annotations need review. Using this method, we show that comparison of manually assigned 'unknown' annotations in the Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD) with InterPro-based predictions can identify annotations that need to be updated. A survey of literature-based annotations and computational predictions made by the Gene Ontology Annotation (GOA) project at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) across several other databases shows that this comparison strategy could be used to maintain and improve the quality of GO annotations for other organisms besides yeast. The survey also shows that although GOA-assigned predictions are the most comprehensive source of functional information for many genomes, a large proportion of genes in a variety of different organisms entirely lack these predictions but do have manual annotations. This underscores the critical need for manually performed, literature-based curation to provide functional information about genes that are outside the scope of widely used computational methods. Thus, the combination of manual and computational methods is essential to provide the most accurate and complete functional annotation of a genome. Database URL: http://www.yeastgenome.org.

Indexed as

Bibliographies as TopicComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticFeasibility StudiesGenome, FungalMolecular Sequence AnnotationSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSoftware

Identifiers

PMID21411447
PMCPMC3067894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.