Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26380077›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2015

The PFP and ESG protein function prediction methods in 2014: effect of database updates and ensemble approaches.

Ishita K Khan, Qing Wei, Samuel Chapman, Dukka B Kc, Daisuke Kihara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2015. 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Ishita K KhanDepartment of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA.
Qing WeiDepartment of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA.
Samuel ChapmanDepartment of Computational Science and Engineering, North Carolina A & T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411 USA.
Dukka B KcDepartment of Computational Science and Engineering, North Carolina A & T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411 USA.
Daisuke KiharaDepartment of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA ; Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA.

Funding

Identification of protein-metabolite interactome.R01GM097528 · NIGMS · PURDUE UNIVERSITY · PI KIHARA, DAISUKE · 2011 to 2014
$1.1M
Role of Mitochondrial CYP2E1 in Chemical Exposure-Driven NeurodegenerationF32ES027306 · NIEHS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI HARTMAN, JESSICA HELENE · 2016 to 2018
$171k
NIEHS NIH HHS 27306C0004NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM097528NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM097528
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFunctional annotation of novel proteins is one of the central problems in bioinformatics. With the ever-increasing development of genome sequencing technologies, more and more sequence information is becoming available to analyze and annotate. To achieve fast and automatic function annotation, many computational (automated) function prediction (AFP) methods have been developed. To objectively evaluate the performance of such methods on a large scale, community-wide assessment experiments have been conducted. The second round of the Critical Assessment of Function Annotation (CAFA) experiment was held in 2013-2014. Evaluation of participating groups was reported in a special interest group meeting at the Intelligent Systems in Molecular Biology (ISMB) conference in Boston in 2014. Our group participated in both CAFA1 and CAFA2 using multiple, in-house AFP methods. Here, we report benchmark results of our methods obtained in the course of preparation for CAFA2 prior to submitting function predictions for CAFA2 targets.

resultsFor CAFA2, we updated the annotation databases used by our methods, protein function prediction (PFP) and extended similarity group (ESG), and benchmarked their function prediction performances using the original (older) and updated databases. Performance evaluation for PFP with different settings and ESG are discussed. We also developed two ensemble methods that combine function predictions from six independent, sequence-based AFP methods. We further analyzed the performances of our prediction methods by enriching the predictions with prior distribution of gene ontology (GO) terms. Examples of predictions by the ensemble methods are discussed.

conclusionsUpdating the annotation database was successful, improving the Fmax prediction accuracy score for both PFP and ESG. Adding the prior distribution of GO terms did not make much improvement. Both of the ensemble methods we developed improved the average Fmax score over all individual component methods except for ESG. Our benchmark results will not only complement the overall assessment that will be done by the CAFA organizers, but also help elucidate the predictive powers of sequence-based function prediction methods in general.

Indexed as

Databases, ProteinProteinsProteinsCAFAconsensus methodensemble methodESGfunction predictiongene annotationPFPProtein functionsequence

Identifiers

PMID26380077
PMCPMC4570625

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.