↓ Skip to main content

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

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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

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
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.
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%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 25 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,162,854
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#933
of 9,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,217
of 211,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#7
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. 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 211,960 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 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 92% of its contemporaries.