↓ Skip to main content

Gene Ontology consistent protein function prediction: the FALCON algorithm applied to six eukaryotic genomes

Overview of attention for article published in Algorithms for Molecular Biology, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Gene Ontology consistent protein function prediction: the FALCON algorithm applied to six eukaryotic genomes
Published in
Algorithms for Molecular Biology, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-7188-8-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yiannis AI Kourmpetis, Aalt DJ van Dijk, Cajo JF ter Braak

Abstract

: Gene Ontology (GO) is a hierarchical vocabulary for the description of biological functions and locations, often employed by computational methods for protein function prediction. Due to the structure of GO, function predictions can be self- contradictory. For example, a protein may be predicted to belong to a detailed functional class, but not in a broader class that, due to the vocabulary structure, includes the predicted one.We present a novel discrete optimization algorithm called Functional Annotation with Labeling CONsistency (FALCON) that resolves such contradictions. The GO is modeled as a discrete Bayesian Network. For any given input of GO term membership probabilities, the algorithm returns the most probable GO term assignments that are in accordance with the Gene Ontology structure. The optimization is done using the Differential Evolution algorithm. Performance is evaluated on simulated and also real data from Arabidopsis thaliana showing improvement compared to related approaches. We finally applied the FALCON algorithm to obtain genome-wide function predictions for six eukaryotic species based on data provided by the CAFA (Critical Assessment of Function Annotation) project.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
India 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 35 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 22%
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Professor 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 34%
Computer Science 12 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 20%
Mathematics 2 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 2 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2013.
All research outputs
#13,149,957
of 22,705,019 outputs
Outputs from Algorithms for Molecular Biology
#93
of 264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,868
of 197,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Algorithms for Molecular Biology
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,705,019 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 264 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,839 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.