↓ Skip to main content

Annotation Error in Public Databases: Misannotation of Molecular Function in Enzyme Superfamilies

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, December 2009
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)

Citations

dimensions_citation
574 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
587 Mendeley
citeulike
27 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
Annotation Error in Public Databases: Misannotation of Molecular Function in Enzyme Superfamilies
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, December 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000605
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra M. Schnoes, Shoshana D. Brown, Igor Dodevski, Patricia C. Babbitt

Abstract

Due to the rapid release of new data from genome sequencing projects, the majority of protein sequences in public databases have not been experimentally characterized; rather, sequences are annotated using computational analysis. The level of misannotation and the types of misannotation in large public databases are currently unknown and have not been analyzed in depth. We have investigated the misannotation levels for molecular function in four public protein sequence databases (UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot, GenBank NR, UniProtKB/TrEMBL, and KEGG) for a model set of 37 enzyme families for which extensive experimental information is available. The manually curated database Swiss-Prot shows the lowest annotation error levels (close to 0% for most families); the two other protein sequence databases (GenBank NR and TrEMBL) and the protein sequences in the KEGG pathways database exhibit similar and surprisingly high levels of misannotation that average 5%-63% across the six superfamilies studied. For 10 of the 37 families examined, the level of misannotation in one or more of these databases is >80%. Examination of the NR database over time shows that misannotation has increased from 1993 to 2005. The types of misannotation that were found fall into several categories, most associated with "overprediction" of molecular function. These results suggest that misannotation in enzyme superfamilies containing multiple families that catalyze different reactions is a larger problem than has been recognized. Strategies are suggested for addressing some of the systematic problems contributing to these high levels of misannotation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 587 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 13 2%
Germany 7 1%
United Kingdom 6 1%
Canada 6 1%
Brazil 6 1%
Switzerland 4 <1%
France 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Other 13 2%
Unknown 525 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 154 26%
Researcher 134 23%
Student > Master 85 14%
Student > Bachelor 51 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 4%
Other 77 13%
Unknown 61 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 271 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 118 20%
Computer Science 35 6%
Chemistry 16 3%
Environmental Science 15 3%
Other 57 10%
Unknown 75 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 02 April 2024.
All research outputs
#921,252
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#693
of 9,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,312
of 176,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#2
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,003 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 176,914 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 55 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.