IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1002533.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality of Computationally Inferred Gene Ontology Annotations

Author

Listed:
  • Nives Škunca
  • Adrian Altenhoff
  • Christophe Dessimoz

Abstract

Gene Ontology (GO) has established itself as the undisputed standard for protein function annotation. Most annotations are inferred electronically, i.e. without individual curator supervision, but they are widely considered unreliable. At the same time, we crucially depend on those automated annotations, as most newly sequenced genomes are non-model organisms. Here, we introduce a methodology to systematically and quantitatively evaluate electronic annotations. By exploiting changes in successive releases of the UniProt Gene Ontology Annotation database, we assessed the quality of electronic annotations in terms of specificity, reliability, and coverage. Overall, we not only found that electronic annotations have significantly improved in recent years, but also that their reliability now rivals that of annotations inferred by curators when they use evidence other than experiments from primary literature. This work provides the means to identify the subset of electronic annotations that can be relied upon—an important outcome given that >98% of all annotations are inferred without direct curation. Author Summary: In the UniProt Gene Ontology Annotation database, the largest repository of functional annotations, over 98% of all function annotations are inferred in silico, without curator oversight. Yet these “electronic GO annotations” are generally perceived as unreliable; they are disregarded in many studies. In this article, we introduce novel methodology to systematically evaluate the quality of electronic annotations. We then provide the first comprehensive assessment of the reliability of electronic GO annotations. Overall, we found that electronic annotations are more reliable than generally believed, to an extent that they are competitive with annotations inferred by curators when they use evidence other than experiments from primary literature. But we also report significant variations among inference methods, types of annotations, and organisms. This work provides guidance for Gene Ontology users and lays the foundations for improving computational approaches to GO function inference.

Suggested Citation

  • Nives Škunca & Adrian Altenhoff & Christophe Dessimoz, 2012. "Quality of Computationally Inferred Gene Ontology Annotations," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-11, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002533
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002533
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002533&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002533?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002533. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.