Genome Research cityscape

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Genome Res. 13:2118-2128, 2003
©2003 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; ISSN 1088-9051/03 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mi, H.
Right arrow Articles by Ashburner, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mi, H.
Right arrow Articles by Ashburner, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Letter

Assessment of Genome-Wide Protein Function Classification for Drosophila melanogaster

Huaiyu Mi1, Jody Vandergriff1, Michael Campbell1, Apurva Narechania1, William Majoros1, Suzanna Lewis2, Paul D. Thomas1,5 and Michael Ashburner3,4,5

1 Protein Informatics, Celera Genomics, Foster City, California 94404, USA 2 Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California Berkeley, California 94720-3200, USA 3 Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EH, England 4 European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SD, England

The functional classification of genes on a genome-wide scale is now in its infancy, and we make a first attempt to assess existing methods and identify sources of error. To this end, we compared two independent efforts for associating proteins with functions, one implemented by FlyBase and the other by PANTHER at Celera Genomics. Both methods make inferences based on sequence similarity and the available experimental evidence. However, they differ considerably in methodology and process. Overall, assuming that the systematic error across the two methods is relatively small, we find the protein-to-function association error rate of both the FlyBase and PANTHER methods to be <2%. The primary source of error for both methods appears to be simple human error. Although homology-based inference can certainly cause errors in annotation, our analysis indicates that the frequency of such errors is relatively small compared with the number of correct inferences. Moreover, these homology errors can be minimized by careful tree-based inference, such as that implemented in PANTHER. Often, functional associations are made by one method and not the other, indicating that one of the greatest challenges lies in improving the completeness of available ontology associations.


[The full set of associations analyzed for this paper is available as Supplemental Material on the GO (http://www.geneontology.org/) and Celera (http://panther.celera.com/publications/gr7716_03_suppl) Web sites.]

Article and publication are at http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gr.771603.

Corresponding authors.

5 E-MAIL paul.thomas{at}fc.celera.com; FAX (650) 554-2344.

5 E-MAIL ma11{at}gen.cam.ac.uk; FAX +44 1223 333992.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Physiol. GenomicsHome page
J. E. Zimmerman, W. Rizzo, K. R. Shockley, D. M. Raizen, N. Naidoo, M. Mackiewicz, G. A. Churchill, and A. I. Pack
Multiple mechanisms limit the duration of wakefulness in Drosophila brain
Physiol Genomics, November 21, 2006; 27(3): 337 - 350.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
B. Balu, D. A. Shoue, M. J. Fraser Jr., and J. H. Adams
High-efficiency transformation of Plasmodium falciparum by the lepidopteran transposable element piggyBac
PNAS, November 8, 2005; 102(45): 16391 - 16396.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Plant Physiol.Home page
J. I. Clark, C. Brooksbank, and J. Lomax
It's All GO for Plant Scientists
Plant Physiology, July 1, 2005; 138(3): 1268 - 1279.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BioinformaticsHome page
I. V. Tetko, B. Brauner, I. Dunger-Kaltenbach, G. Frishman, C. Montrone, G. Fobo, A. Ruepp, A. V. Antonov, D. Surmeli, and H.-W. Mewes
MIPS bacterial genomes functional annotation benchmark dataset
Bioinformatics, May 15, 2005; 21(10): 2520 - 2521.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nucleic Acids ResHome page
H. Mi, B. Lazareva-Ulitsky, R. Loo, A. Kejariwal, J. Vandergriff, S. Rabkin, N. Guo, A. Muruganujan, O. Doremieux, M. J. Campbell, et al.
The PANTHER database of protein families, subfamilies, functions and pathways
Nucleic Acids Res., January 1, 2005; 33(suppl_1): D284 - D288.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nucleic Acids ResHome page
R. A. Drysdale, M. A. Crosby, and The FlyBase Consortium
FlyBase: genes and gene models
Nucleic Acids Res., January 1, 2005; 33(suppl_1): D390 - D395.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nucleic Acids ResHome page
A. Ruepp, A. Zollner, D. Maier, K. Albermann, J. Hani, M. Mokrejs, I. Tetko, U. Guldener, G. Mannhaupt, M. Munsterkotter, et al.
The FunCat, a functional annotation scheme for systematic classification of proteins from whole genomes
Nucleic Acids Res., October 14, 2004; 32(18): 5539 - 5545.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Nucleic Acids ResHome page
Gene Ontology Consortium
The Gene Ontology (GO) database and informatics resource
Nucleic Acids Res., January 1, 2004; 32(90001): D258 - 261.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Genes Dev. Learn. Mem.
Protein Science RNA Genome Res.
Copyright © 2003 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.