ArticlePloS one2012
Automatic assignment of prokaryotic genes to functional categories using literature profiling.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A deep learning model to detect novel pore-forming proteins.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Diversity of gene cassettes and the abundance of the class 1 integron-integrase gene in sediment polluted by metals.Extremophiles : life under extreme conditions · 2016Article
- Activation and identification of five clusters for secondary metabolites in Streptomyces albus J1074.Microbial biotechnology · 2014Article
- Article
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
Abstract
In the last years, there was an exponential increase in the number of publicly available genomes. Once finished, most genome projects lack financial support to review annotations. A few of these gene annotations are based on a combination of bioinformatics evidence, however, in most cases, annotations are based solely on sequence similarity to a previously known gene, which was most probably annotated in the same way. As a result, a large number of predicted genes remain unassigned to any functional category despite the fact that there is enough evidence in the literature to predict their function. We developed a classifier trained with term-frequency vectors automatically disclosed from text corpora of an ensemble of genes representative of each functional category of the J. Craig Venter Institute Comprehensive Microbial Resource (JCVI-CMR) ontology. The classifier achieved up to 84% precision with 68% recall (for confidence≥0.4), F-measure 0.76 (recall and precision equally weighted) in an independent set of 2,220 genes, from 13 bacterial species, previously classified by JCVI-CMR into unambiguous categories of its ontology. Finally, the classifier assigned (confidence≥0.7) to functional categories a total of 5,235 out of the ∼24 thousand genes previously in categories "Unknown function" or "Unclassified" for which there is literature in MEDLINE. Two biologists reviewed the literature of 100 of these genes, randomly picket, and assigned them to the same functional categories predicted by the automatic classifier. Our results confirmed the hypothesis that it is possible to confidently assign genes of a real world repository to functional categories, based exclusively on the automatic profiling of its associated literature. The LitProf--Gene Classifier web server is accessible at: www.cebio.org/litprofGC.
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.