↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Biases in the Experimental Annotations of Protein Function and Their Effect on Our Understanding of Protein Function Space

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
40 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
citeulike
10 CiteULike
Title
Biases in the Experimental Annotations of Protein Function and Their Effect on Our Understanding of Protein Function Space
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, May 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003063
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra M. Schnoes, David C. Ream, Alexander W. Thorman, Patricia C. Babbitt, Iddo Friedberg

Abstract

The ongoing functional annotation of proteins relies upon the work of curators to capture experimental findings from scientific literature and apply them to protein sequence and structure data. However, with the increasing use of high-throughput experimental assays, a small number of experimental studies dominate the functional protein annotations collected in databases. Here, we investigate just how prevalent is the "few articles - many proteins" phenomenon. We examine the experimentally validated annotation of proteins provided by several groups in the GO Consortium, and show that the distribution of proteins per published study is exponential, with 0.14% of articles providing the source of annotations for 25% of the proteins in the UniProt-GOA compilation. Since each of the dominant articles describes the use of an assay that can find only one function or a small group of functions, this leads to substantial biases in what we know about the function of many proteins. Mass-spectrometry, microscopy and RNAi experiments dominate high throughput experiments. Consequently, the functional information derived from these experiments is mostly of the subcellular location of proteins, and of the participation of proteins in embryonic developmental pathways. For some organisms, the information provided by different studies overlap by a large amount. We also show that the information provided by high throughput experiments is less specific than those provided by low throughput experiments. Given the experimental techniques available, certain biases in protein function annotation due to high-throughput experiments are unavoidable. Knowing that these biases exist and understanding their characteristics and extent is important for database curators, developers of function annotation programs, and anyone who uses protein function annotation data to plan experiments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 6%
United Kingdom 8 6%
Canada 3 2%
Denmark 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 118 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 31%
Researcher 44 30%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Professor 8 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 8 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 62 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 32 22%
Computer Science 19 13%
Engineering 3 2%
Physics and Astronomy 2 1%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 17 12%