Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22434836›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2012

CvManGO, a method for leveraging computational predictions to improve literature-based Gene Ontology annotations.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. BC4GO: a full-text corpus for the BioCreative IV GO task.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2014
    Article
  5. Curation accuracy of model organism databases.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2014
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Recent advances in biocuration: meeting report from the Fifth International Biocuration Conference.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2012
    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

5 authors.

Julie ParkDepartment of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5120, USA.
Maria C Costanzo
Rama Balakrishnan
J Michael Cherry
Eurie L Hong

Funding

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
NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG001315NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG002273
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The set of annotations at the Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD) that classifies the cellular function of S. cerevisiae gene products using Gene Ontology (GO) terms has become an important resource for facilitating experimental analysis. In addition to capturing and summarizing experimental results, the structured nature of GO annotations allows for functional comparison across organisms as well as propagation of functional predictions between related gene products. Due to their relevance to many areas of research, ensuring the accuracy and quality of these annotations is a priority at SGD. GO annotations are assigned either manually, by biocurators extracting experimental evidence from the scientific literature, or through automated methods that leverage computational algorithms to predict functional information. Here, we discuss the relationship between literature-based and computationally predicted GO annotations in SGD and extend a strategy whereby comparison of these two types of annotation identifies genes whose annotations need review. Our method, CvManGO (Computational versus Manual GO annotations), pairs literature-based GO annotations with computational GO predictions and evaluates the relationship of the two terms within GO, looking for instances of discrepancy. We found that this method will identify genes that require annotation updates, taking an important step towards finding ways to prioritize literature review. Additionally, we explored factors that may influence the effectiveness of CvManGO in identifying relevant gene targets to find in particular those genes that are missing literature-supported annotations, but our survey found that there are no immediately identifiable criteria by which one could enrich for these under-annotated genes. Finally, we discuss possible ways to improve this strategy, and the applicability of this method to other projects that use the GO for curation. DATABASE URL: http://www.yeastgenome.org.

Indexed as

Databases, GeneticSoftwareVocabulary, ControlledComputational BiologyGenes, FungalGenome, FungalMolecular Sequence AnnotationSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins

Identifiers

PMID22434836
PMCPMC3308158

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.