ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020
Benchmarking gene ontology function predictions using negative annotations.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating network-based algorithms for protein function prediction using plant protein-protein interaction networks.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Article
- GO Bench: shared hub for universal benchmarking of machine learning-based protein functional annotations.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Immunogenic cell death-led discovery of COVID-19 biomarkers and inflammatory infiltrates.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Pan-Cancer Bioinformatics Analysis of Gene UBE2C.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- PANNZER-A practical tool for protein function prediction.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.