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 eleven organisms. Two findings stand out: (i) today’s best protein function prediction algorithms significantly outperformed 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 significant need for improvement of currently available tools.

BackgroundA major bottleneck in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of life is the assignment of function to proteins. While molecular experiments provide the most reliable annotation of proteins, their relatively low throughput and restricted purview have led to an increasing role for computational function prediction. However, assessing methods for protein function prediction and tracking progress in the field remain challenging.ResultsWe conducted the second critical assessment of functional annotation (CAFA), a timed challenge to assess computational methods that automatically assign protein function. We evaluated 126 methods from 56 research groups for their ability to predict biological functions using Gene Ontology and gene-disease associations using Human Phenotype Ontology on a set of 3681 proteins from 18 species. CAFA2 featured expanded analysis compared with CAFA1, with regards to data set size, variety, and assessment metrics. To review progress in the field, the analysis compared the best methods from CAFA1 to those of CAFA2.ConclusionsThe top-performing methods in CAFA2 outperformed those from CAFA1. This increased accuracy can be attributed to a combination of the growing number of experimental annotations and improved methods for function prediction. The assessment also revealed that the definition of top-performing algorithms is ontology specific, that different performance metrics can be used to probe the nature of accurate predictions, and the relative diversity of predictions in the biological process and human phenotype ontologies. While there was methodological improvement between CAFA1 and CAFA2, the interpretation of results and usefulness of individual methods remain context-dependent.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13059-016-1037-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundOntological concepts are useful for many different biomedical tasks. Concepts are difficult to recognize in text due to a disconnect between what is captured in an ontology and how the concepts are expressed in text. There are many recognizers for specific ontologies, but a general approach for concept recognition is an open problem.ResultsThree dictionary-based systems (MetaMap, NCBO Annotator, and ConceptMapper) are evaluated on eight biomedical ontologies in the Colorado Richly Annotated Full-Text (CRAFT) Corpus. Over 1,000 parameter combinations are examined, and best-performing parameters for each system-ontology pair are presented.ConclusionsBaselines for concept recognition by three systems on eight biomedical ontologies are established (F-measures range from 0.14–0.83). Out of the three systems we tested, ConceptMapper is generally the best-performing system; it produces the highest F-measure of seven out of eight ontologies. Default parameters are not ideal for most systems on most ontologies; by changing parameters F-measure can be increased by up to 0.4. Not only are best performing parameters presented, but suggestions for choosing the best parameters based on ontology characteristics are presented.

BackgroundWe introduce the linguistic annotation of a corpus of 97 full-text biomedical publications, known as the Colorado Richly Annotated Full Text (CRAFT) corpus. We further assess the performance of existing tools for performing sentence splitting, tokenization, syntactic parsing, and named entity recognition on this corpus.ResultsMany biomedical natural language processing systems demonstrated large differences between their previously published results and their performance on the CRAFT corpus when tested with the publicly available models or rule sets. Trainable systems differed widely with respect to their ability to build high-performing models based on this data.ConclusionsThe finding that some systems were able to train high-performing models based on this corpus is additional evidence, beyond high inter-annotator agreement, that the quality of the CRAFT corpus is high. The overall poor performance of various systems indicates that considerable work needs to be done to enable natural language processing systems to work well when the input is full-text journal articles. The CRAFT corpus provides a valuable resource to the biomedical natural language processing community for evaluation and training of new models for biomedical full text publications.

No abstract