↓ Skip to main content

Protein function prediction using guilty by association from interaction networks

Overview of attention for article published in Amino Acids, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Protein function prediction using guilty by association from interaction networks
Published in
Amino Acids, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00726-015-2049-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Damiano Piovesan, Manuel Giollo, Carlo Ferrari, Silvio C. E. Tosatto

Abstract

Protein function prediction from sequence using the Gene Ontology (GO) classification is useful in many biological problems. It has recently attracted increasing interest, thanks in part to the Critical Assessment of Function Annotation (CAFA) challenge. In this paper, we introduce Guilty by Association on STRING (GAS), a tool to predict protein function exploiting protein-protein interaction networks without sequence similarity. The assumption is that whenever a protein interacts with other proteins, it is part of the same biological process and located in the same cellular compartment. GAS retrieves interaction partners of a query protein from the STRING database and measures enrichment of the associated functional annotations to generate a sorted list of putative functions. A performance evaluation based on CAFA metrics and a fair comparison with optimized BLAST similarity searches is provided. The consensus of GAS and BLAST is shown to improve overall performance. The PPI approach is shown to outperform similarity searches for biological process and cellular compartment GO predictions. Moreover, an analysis of the best practices to exploit protein-protein interaction networks is also provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 31%
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Researcher 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 39%
Computer Science 13 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 8 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,340,815
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Amino Acids
#1,015
of 1,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,895
of 263,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Amino Acids
#23
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.