ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2016
GO annotation in InterPro: why stability does not indicate accuracy in a sea of changing annotations.
Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating completeness, coherence, and consistency of genome-scale function annotations.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Comparison of Transcriptome Differences in Scales of Two Closely Related Snake Species (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Defining the condensate landscape of fusion oncoproteins.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Whole-Genome Sequence Analysis of an Endophytic FungusMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Microbial Strategies for Survival in the Glass SpongemSystems · 2020Article
- Towards region-specific propagation of protein functions.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2019Article
- InterPro in 2019: improving coverage, classification and access to protein sequence annotations.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Computational discovery of direct associations between GO terms and protein domains.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Gene ontology concept recognition using named concept: understanding the various presentations of the gene functions in biomedical literature.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2018Article
- De novo assembling and primary analysis of genome and transcriptome of gray whale Eschrichtius robustus.BMC evolutionary biology · 2017Article
- Construction and Optimization of a Large Gene Coexpression Network in Maize Using RNA-Seq Data.Plant physiology · 2017Article
- InterPro in 2017-beyond protein family and domain annotations.Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The removal of annotation from biological databases is often perceived as an indicator of erroneous annotation. As a corollary, annotation stability is considered to be a measure of reliability. However, diverse data-driven events can affect the stability of annotations in both primary protein sequence databases and the protein family databases that are built upon the sequence databases and used to help annotate them. Here, we describe some of these events and their consequences for the InterPro database, and demonstrate that annotation removal or reassignment is not always linked to incorrect annotation by the curator. Database URL: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/interpro.
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.