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

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.

Full text

Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:

References 25

1. 1.

   Friedberg I (2006 ) Automated protein function prediction–the genomic challenge. Brief Bioinform 7: 225–242.

   Not in our library10.1093/bib/bbl004

2. 2.
   Annotation Error in Public Databases: Misannotation of Molecular Function in Enzyme Superfamilies · 2009

   No notice
3. 3.

   Erdin S, Lisewski AM, Lichtarge O (2011 ) Protein function prediction: towards integration of similarity metrics. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 21: 180–188.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.sbi.2011.02.001

4. 4.

   Rentzsch R, Orengo CA (2009 ) Protein function prediction the power of multiplicity. Trends in Biotechnology 27: 210–219.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.01.002

5. 5.

   Sthl PL, Lundeberg J (2012 ) Toward the single-hour high-quality genome. Annual Review of Biochemistry 81: 359–378.

   Not in our library10.1146/annurev-biochem-060410-094158

6. 6.

   Sboner A, Mu X, Greenbaum D, Auerbach R, Gerstein M (2011 ) The real cost of sequencing: higher than you think!. Genome Biology 12: 125+.

   Not in our library10.1186/gb-2011-12-8-125

7. 7.

   Dimmer EC, Huntley RP, Alam-Faruque Y, Sawford T, O'Donovan C, et al (2012 ) The uniprot-go annotation database in 2011. Nucleic Acids Research 40: D565–D570.

   Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkr1048

8. 8.

   Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, et al (2000 ) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics 25: 25–29.

   Not in our library10.1038/75556

9. 9.

   Barbe L, Lundberg E, Oksvold P, Stenius A, Lewin E, et al (2008 ) Toward a confocal subcellular atlas of the human proteome. Mol Cell Proteomics 7: 499–508.

   Not in our library10.1074/mcp.m700325-mcp200

10. 10.

    Fraser AG, Kamath RS, Zipperlen P, Martinez-Campos M, Sohrmann M, et al (2000 ) Functional genomic analysis of C. elegans chromosome I by systematic RNA interference. Nature 408: 325–330.

    Not in our library10.1038/35042517

11. 11.

    Maeda I, Kohara Y, Yamamoto M, Sugimoto A (2001 ) Large-scale analysis of gene function in Caenorhabditis elegans by high-throughput RNAi. Curr Biol 11: 171–176.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00052-5

12. 12.

    Piano F, Schetter AJ, Morton DG, Gunsalus KC, Reinke V, et al (2002 ) Gene clustering based on RNAi phenotypes of ovary-enriched genes in C. elegans. Curr Biol 12: 1959–1964.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0960-9822(02)01301-5

13. 13.

    Kamath RS, Fraser AG, Dong Y, Poulin G, Durbin R, et al (2003 ) Systematic functional analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using RNAi. Nature 421: 231–237.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature01278

14. 14.

    Goshima G, Wollman R, Goodwin SS, Zhang N, Scholey JM, et al (2007 ) Genes required for mitotic spindle assembly in Drosophila S2 cells. Science 316: 417–421.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1141314

15. 15.

    Ashrafi K, Chang FY, Watts JL, Fraser AG, Kamath RS, et al (2003 ) Genomewide RNAi analysis of Caenorhabditis elegans fat regulatory genes. Nature 421: 268–272.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature01279

16. 16.

    Balklava Z, Pant S, Fares H, Grant BD (2007 ) Genome-wide analysis identifies a general requirement for polarity proteins in endocytic traffic. Nat Cell Biol 9: 1066–1073.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb1627

17. 17.

    Hughes JR, Meireles AM, Fisher KH, Garcia A, Antrobus PR, et al (2008 ) A microtubule interactome: complexes with roles in cell cycle and mitosis. PLoS Biol 6: e98.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pbio.0060098

18. 18.

    Wittkop T, TerAvest E, Evani U, Fleisch K, Berman A, et al (2013 ) STOP using just GO: a multi-ontology hypothesis generation tool for high throughput experimentation. BMC Bioinformatics 14: 53+.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2105-14-53

19. 19.

    Radivojac P, Clark W, Ronnen-Oron T, Schnoes A, Wittkop T, et al (2013 ) A largescale evaluation of computational protein function prediction. Nature Methods 10: 221–7.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2340

20. 20.

    Cock P, Antao T, Chang J, Chapman B, Cox C, et al (2009 ) Biopython: freely available python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 25: 1422.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btp163

21. 21.

    Hunter JD (2007 ) Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment. Computing In Science & Engineering 9: 90–95.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    Altschul SF, Madden TL, Sch¨affer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, et al (1997 ) Gapped blast and psi-blast: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic acids research 25: 3389–3402.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/25.17.3389

23. 23.

    Lord PW, Stevens RD, Brass A, Goble CA (2003 ) Investigating semantic similarity measures across the gene ontology: the relationship between sequence and annotation. Bioinformatics 19: 1275–1283.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btg153

24. 24.
    Semantic Similarity in Biomedical Ontologies · 2009

    No notice
25. 25.
    Mining GO annotations for improving annotation consistency. · 2012

    Not checked

Cited by papers we hold 7

• Automatic consistency assurance for literature-based gene ontology annotation · 2021
  Not checked
• Inferring the molecular and phenotypic impact of amino acid variants with MutPred2 · 2020
  No notice
• The CAFA challenge reports improved protein function prediction and new functional annotations for hundreds of genes through experimental screens · 2019
  No notice
• Interpretation of biological experiments changes with evolution of the Gene Ontology and its annotations · 2018
  No notice
• An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy · 2016
  No notice
• Functional classification of CATH superfamilies: a domain-based approach for protein function annotation · 2015
  No notice
• CATH: comprehensive structural and functional annotations for genome sequences · 2014
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.