↓ Skip to main content

Improving the Caenorhabditis elegans Genome Annotation Using Machine Learning

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, February 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
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
Improving the Caenorhabditis elegans Genome Annotation Using Machine Learning
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, February 2007
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030020
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gunnar Rätsch, Sören Sonnenburg, Jagan Srinivasan, Hanh Witte, Klaus-R Müller, Ralf-J Sommer, Bernhard Schölkopf

Abstract

For modern biology, precise genome annotations are of prime importance, as they allow the accurate definition of genic regions. We employ state-of-the-art machine learning methods to assay and improve the accuracy of the genome annotation of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. The proposed machine learning system is trained to recognize exons and introns on the unspliced mRNA, utilizing recent advances in support vector machines and label sequence learning. In 87% (coding and untranslated regions) and 95% (coding regions only) of all genes tested in several out-of-sample evaluations, our method correctly identified all exons and introns. Notably, only 37% and 50%, respectively, of the presently unconfirmed genes in the C. elegans genome annotation agree with our predictions, thus we hypothesize that a sizable fraction of those genes are not correctly annotated. A retrospective evaluation of the Wormbase WS120 annotation [] of C. elegans reveals that splice form predictions on unconfirmed genes in WS120 are inaccurate in about 18% of the considered cases, while our predictions deviate from the truth only in 10%-13%. We experimentally analyzed 20 controversial genes on which our system and the annotation disagree, confirming the superiority of our predictions. While our method correctly predicted 75% of those cases, the standard annotation was never completely correct. The accuracy of our system is further corroborated by a comparison with two other recently proposed systems that can be used for splice form prediction: SNAP and ExonHunter. We conclude that the genome annotation of C. elegans and other organisms can be greatly enhanced using modern machine learning technology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 7%
Germany 4 4%
Russia 2 2%
Norway 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Finland 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 80 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 22%
Other 8 8%
Professor 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 32%
Computer Science 26 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Engineering 6 6%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 14 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 June 2021.
All research outputs
#7,121,498
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#4,801
of 9,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,114
of 91,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#13
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 91,651 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.