↓ Skip to main content

Exploring inconsistencies in genome-wide protein function annotations: a machine learning approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Exploring inconsistencies in genome-wide protein function annotations: a machine learning approach
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-8-284
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carson Andorf, Drena Dobbs, Vasant Honavar

Abstract

Incorrectly annotated sequence data are becoming more commonplace as databases increasingly rely on automated techniques for annotation. Hence, there is an urgent need for computational methods for checking consistency of such annotations against independent sources of evidence and detecting potential annotation errors. We show how a machine learning approach designed to automatically predict a protein's Gene Ontology (GO) functional class can be employed to identify potential gene annotation errors. In a set of 211 previously annotated mouse protein kinases, we found that 201 of the GO annotations returned by AmiGO appear to be inconsistent with the UniProt functions assigned to their human counterparts. In contrast, 97% of the predicted annotations generated using a machine learning approach were consistent with the UniProt annotations of the human counterparts, as well as with available annotations for these mouse protein kinases in the Mouse Kinome database. We conjecture that most of our predicted annotations are, therefore, correct and suggest that the machine learning approach developed here could be routinely used to detect potential errors in GO annotations generated by high-throughput gene annotation projects. Editors Note: Authors from the original publication (Okazaki et al.: Nature 2002, 420:563-73) have provided their response to Andorf et al, directly following the correspondence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
France 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 36 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 31%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 43%
Computer Science 10 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 12%
Physics and Astronomy 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 4 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 11 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,072,440
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,090
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,591
of 67,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#6
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 67,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.