↓ Skip to main content

A large-scale evaluation of computational protein function prediction

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Methods, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
63 X users
patent
2 patents
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
4 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
1083 Mendeley
citeulike
24 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A large-scale evaluation of computational protein function prediction
Published in
Nature Methods, January 2013
DOI 10.1038/nmeth.2340
Pubmed ID
Authors

Predrag Radivojac, Wyatt T Clark, Tal Ronnen Oron, Alexandra M Schnoes, Tobias Wittkop, Artem Sokolov, Kiley Graim, Christopher Funk, Karin Verspoor, Asa Ben-Hur, Gaurav Pandey, Jeffrey M Yunes, Ameet S Talwalkar, Susanna Repo, Michael L Souza, Damiano Piovesan, Rita Casadio, Zheng Wang, Jianlin Cheng, Hai Fang, Julian Gough, Patrik Koskinen, Petri Törönen, Jussi Nokso-Koivisto, Liisa Holm, Domenico Cozzetto, Daniel W A Buchan, Kevin Bryson, David T Jones, Bhakti Limaye, Harshal Inamdar, Avik Datta, Sunitha K Manjari, Rajendra Joshi, Meghana Chitale, Daisuke Kihara, Andreas M Lisewski, Serkan Erdin, Eric Venner, Olivier Lichtarge, Robert Rentzsch, Haixuan Yang, Alfonso E Romero, Prajwal Bhat, Alberto Paccanaro, Tobias Hamp, Rebecca Kaßner, Stefan Seemayer, Esmeralda Vicedo, Christian Schaefer, Dominik Achten, Florian Auer, Ariane Boehm, Tatjana Braun, Maximilian Hecht, Mark Heron, Peter Hönigschmid, Thomas A Hopf, Stefanie Kaufmann, Michael Kiening, Denis Krompass, Cedric Landerer, Yannick Mahlich, Manfred Roos, Jari Björne, Tapio Salakoski, Andrew Wong, Hagit Shatkay, Fanny Gatzmann, Ingolf Sommer, Mark N Wass, Michael J E Sternberg, Nives Škunca, Fran Supek, Matko Bošnjak, Panče Panov, Sašo Džeroski, Tomislav Šmuc, Yiannis A I Kourmpetis, Aalt D J van Dijk, Cajo J F ter Braak, Yuanpeng Zhou, Qingtian Gong, Xinran Dong, Weidong Tian, Marco Falda, Paolo Fontana, Enrico Lavezzo, Barbara Di Camillo, Stefano Toppo, Liang Lan, Nemanja Djuric, Yuhong Guo, Slobodan Vucetic, Amos Bairoch, Michal Linial, Patricia C Babbitt, Steven E Brenner, Christine Orengo, Burkhard Rost, Sean D Mooney, Iddo Friedberg

Abstract

Automated annotation of protein function is challenging. As the number of sequenced genomes rapidly grows, the overwhelming majority of protein products can only be annotated computationally. If computational predictions are to be relied upon, it is crucial that the accuracy of these methods be high. Here we report the results from the first large-scale community-based critical assessment of protein function annotation (CAFA) experiment. Fifty-four methods representing the state of the art for protein function prediction were evaluated on a target set of 866 proteins from 11 organisms. Two findings stand out: (i) today's best protein function prediction algorithms substantially outperform widely used first-generation methods, with large gains on all types of targets; and (ii) although the top methods perform well enough to guide experiments, there is considerable need for improvement of currently available tools.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,083 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 27 2%
United Kingdom 16 1%
Germany 11 1%
Brazil 5 <1%
Spain 5 <1%
Netherlands 5 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
India 4 <1%
Japan 4 <1%
Other 17 2%
Unknown 985 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 254 23%
Researcher 230 21%
Student > Master 126 12%
Student > Bachelor 85 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 43 4%
Other 173 16%
Unknown 172 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 388 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 206 19%
Computer Science 149 14%
Engineering 31 3%
Chemistry 31 3%
Other 77 7%
Unknown 201 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 92. 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 21 August 2026.
All research outputs
#580,694
of 34,281,662 outputs
Outputs from Nature Methods
#644
of 6,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,755
of 341,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Methods
#3
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,281,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 341,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.