↓ Skip to main content

Predicting the functions of a protein from its ability to associate with other molecules

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
Title
Predicting the functions of a protein from its ability to associate with other molecules
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-0882-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kamal Taha, Paul D. Yoo

Abstract

All proteins associate with other molecules. These associated molecules are highly predictive of the potential functions of proteins. The association of a protein and a molecule can be determined from their co-occurrences in biomedical abstracts. Extensive semantically related co-occurrences of a protein's name and a molecule's name in the sentences of biomedical abstracts can be considered as indicative of the association between the protein and the molecule. Dependency parsers extract textual relations from a text by determining the grammatical relations between words in a sentence. They can be used for determining the textual relations between proteins and molecules. Despite their success, they may extract textual relations with low precision. This is because they do not consider the semantic relationships between terms in a sentence (i.e., they consider only the structural relationships between the terms). Moreover, they may not be well suited for complex sentences and for long-distance textual relations. We introduce an information extraction system called PPFBM that predicts the functions of unannotated proteins from the molecules that associate with these proteins. PPFBM represents each protein by the other molecules that associate with it in the abstracts referenced in the protein's entries in reliable biological databases. It automatically extracts each co-occurrence of a protein-molecule pair that represents semantic relationship between the pair. Towards this, we present novel semantic rules that identify the semantic relationship between each co-occurrence of a protein-molecule pair using the syntactic structures of sentences and linguistics theories. PPFBM determines the functions of an un-annotated protein p as follows. First, it determines the set S r of annotated proteins that is semantically similar to p by matching the molecules representing p and the annotated proteins. Then, it assigns p the functional category FC if the significance of the frequency of occurrences of S r in abstracts associated with proteins annotated with FC is statistically significantly different than the significance of the frequency of occurrences of S r in abstracts associated with proteins annotated with all other functional categories. We evaluated the quality of PPFBM by comparing it experimentally with two other systems. Results showed marked improvement. The experimental results demonstrated that PPFBM outperforms other systems that predict protein function from the textual information found within biomedical abstracts. This is because these system do not consider the semantic relationships between terms in a sentence (i.e., they consider only the structural relationships between the terms). PPFBM's performance over these system increases steadily as the number of training protein increases. That is, PPFBM's prediction performance becomes more accurate constantly, as the size of training proteins gets larger. This is because every time a new set of test proteins is added to the current set of training proteins. A demo of PPFBM that annotates each input Yeast protein (SGD (Saccharomyces Genome Database). Available at: http://www.yeastgenome.org/download-data/curation ) with the functions of Gene Ontology terms is available at: (see Appendix for more details about the demo) http://ecesrvr.kustar.ac.ae:8080/PPFBM/ .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 28 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Professor 6 20%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 9 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 4 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,363,602
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,690
of 7,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,607
of 401,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#70
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 401,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.