Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32657372›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020

Benchmarking gene ontology function predictions using negative annotations.

Alex Warwick Vesztrocy, Christophe Dessimoz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2020. 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. Article
  5. Article
  6. PANNZER-A practical tool for protein function prediction.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
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

2 authors.

Alex Warwick VesztrocyDepartment of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Christophe DessimozDepartment of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M015009/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationWith the ever-increasing number and diversity of sequenced species, the challenge to characterize genes with functional information is even more important. In most species, this characterization almost entirely relies on automated electronic methods. As such, it is critical to benchmark the various methods. The Critical Assessment of protein Function Annotation algorithms (CAFA) series of community experiments provide the most comprehensive benchmark, with a time-delayed analysis leveraging newly curated experimentally supported annotations. However, the definition of a false positive in CAFA has not fully accounted for the open world assumption (OWA), leading to a systematic underestimation of precision. The main reason for this limitation is the relative paucity of negative experimental annotations.

resultsThis article introduces a new, OWA-compliant, benchmark based on a balanced test set of positive and negative annotations. The negative annotations are derived from expert-curated annotations of protein families on phylogenetic trees. This approach results in a large increase in the average information content of negative annotations. The benchmark has been tested using the naïve and BLAST baseline methods, as well as two orthology-based methods. This new benchmark could complement existing ones in future CAFA experiments. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All data, as well as code used for analysis, is available from https://lab.dessimoz.org/20_not. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingProteinsComputational BiologyGene OntologyHumansMolecular Sequence AnnotationPhylogenyProteins

Identifiers

PMID32657372
PMCPMC7355306

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.