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

Abstract

BackgroundIncorrectly 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionWe 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.

Predicting the Binding Patterns of Hub Proteins: A Study Using Yeast Protein Interaction Networks

“…The Naive Bayes k -grams (NB k -grams) method [73] uses a sliding a window of size k along each sequence to generate a bag of k -grams representation of the sequence. Much like in the case of the Naive Bayes classifier described above, the Naïve Bayes k -grams classifier treats each k -gram in the bag to be independent of the others given the class label for the sequence.…”

The genome sequence of the psychrophilic archaeon, Methanococcoides burtonii: the role of genome evolution in cold adaptation

“…These range from the propagation of erroneous annotations to conflicts between the results of different annotation pipelines [11][12][13][14] Databases such as the curated part of UniProt offer the benefit of providing evidence for why a particular gene function has been assigned [15]. This is important, as a particularly common source of error is the assignment of function based solely on sequence similarity.…”

Assessing identity, redundancy and confounds in Gene Ontology annotations over time

“…There have been multiple assessments of GO annotation correctness, often focusing on subsets of annotations (Andorf et al, 2007;Devos and Valencia, 2001;Naumoff et al, 2004;Park et al, 2005;Schnoes et al, 2009;Sˇkunca et al, 2012). Assessment of GO's structure independent of annotation has tended to focus on issues of redundancy within the ontology structure; that is, using different names for the same concept or different concepts for the same name (Alterovitz et al, 2007;Onsongo et al, 2008).…”