Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22180409›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2012

Novel search method for the discovery of functional relationships.

Fidel Ramírez, Glenn Lawyer, Mario Albrecht

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2012. 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

3 authors.

Fidel RamírezMax Planck Institute for Informatics, Campus E1.4, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany.
Glenn Lawyer
Mario Albrecht

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationNumerous annotations are available that functionally characterize genes and proteins with regard to molecular process, cellular localization, tissue expression, protein domain composition, protein interaction, disease association and other properties. Searching this steadily growing amount of information can lead to the discovery of new biological relationships between genes and proteins. To facilitate the searches, methods are required that measure the annotation similarity of genes and proteins. However, most current similarity methods are focused only on annotations from the Gene Ontology (GO) and do not take other annotation sources into account.

resultsWe introduce the new method BioSim that incorporates multiple sources of annotations to quantify the functional similarity of genes and proteins. We compared the performance of our method with four other well-known methods adapted to use multiple annotation sources. We evaluated the methods by searching for known functional relationships using annotations based only on GO or on our large data warehouse BioMyn. This warehouse integrates many diverse annotation sources of human genes and proteins. We observed that the search performance improved substantially for almost all methods when multiple annotation sources were included. In particular, our method outperformed the other methods in terms of recall and average precision.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenesComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticHumansInternetMolecular Sequence AnnotationProteinsVocabulary, ControlledProteins

Identifiers

PMID22180409
PMCPMC3259435

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.