Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22054122›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011

AIGO: towards a unified framework for the analysis and the inter-comparison of GO functional annotations.

Michael Defoin-Platel, Matthew M Hindle, Artem Lysenko, Stephen J Powers, Dimah Z Habash, Christopher J Rawlings, Mansoor Saqi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Michael Defoin-PlatelDepartment of Biomathematics and Bioinformatics, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, UK. michael.defoin-platel@rothamsted.ac.uk
Matthew M Hindle
Artem Lysenko
Stephen J Powers
Dimah Z Habash
Christopher J Rawlings
Mansoor Saqi

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F006039/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/C/00004655Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/C/00004937Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/C/00004938Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/C/00004941
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn response to the rapid growth of available genome sequences, efforts have been made to develop automatic inference methods to functionally characterize them. Pipelines that infer functional annotation are now routinely used to produce new annotations at a genome scale and for a broad variety of species. These pipelines differ widely in their inference algorithms, confidence thresholds and data sources for reasoning. This heterogeneity makes a comparison of the relative merits of each approach extremely complex. The evaluation of the quality of the resultant annotations is also challenging given there is often no existing gold-standard against which to evaluate precision and recall.

resultsIn this paper, we present a pragmatic approach to the study of functional annotations. An ensemble of 12 metrics, describing various aspects of functional annotations, is defined and implemented in a unified framework, which facilitates their systematic analysis and inter-comparison. The use of this framework is demonstrated on three illustrative examples: analysing the outputs of state-of-the-art inference pipelines, comparing electronic versus manual annotation methods, and monitoring the evolution of publicly available functional annotations. The framework is part of the AIGO library (http://code.google.com/p/aigo) for the Analysis and the Inter-comparison of the products of Gene Ontology (GO) annotation pipelines. The AIGO library also provides functionalities to easily load, analyse, manipulate and compare functional annotations and also to plot and export the results of the analysis in various formats.

conclusionsThis work is a step toward developing a unified framework for the systematic study of GO functional annotations. This framework has been designed so that new metrics on GO functional annotations can be added in a very straightforward way.

Indexed as

Molecular Sequence AnnotationVocabulary, ControlledAlgorithmsAnimalsCattleChromosome MappingDatabases, GeneticGenomeGenomicsHumans

Identifiers

PMID22054122
PMCPMC3237112

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.