2012
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.1-14.v1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Progress and challenges in the computational prediction of gene function using networks

Abstract: In this opinion piece, we attempt to unify recent arguments we have made that serious confounds affect the use of network data to predict and characterize gene function. The development of computational approaches to determine gene function is a major strand of computational genomics research. However, progress beyond using BLAST to transfer annotations has been surprisingly slow. We have previously argued that a large part of the reported success in using "guilt by association" in network data is due to the t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite the accumulation of vast amounts of genomics data or of differential expression data, computational attempts to predict gene function so far have a rather limited degree of success (Pavlidis & Gillis, ; Piro & Di Cunto, ; Pavlidis & Gillis, ; Lehtinen et al, ). Conventional cell biology approaches regularly identify new functions for proteins and, indeed, the predictive computational methods are largely anchored by conventional cell biology results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the accumulation of vast amounts of genomics data or of differential expression data, computational attempts to predict gene function so far have a rather limited degree of success (Pavlidis & Gillis, ; Piro & Di Cunto, ; Pavlidis & Gillis, ; Lehtinen et al, ). Conventional cell biology approaches regularly identify new functions for proteins and, indeed, the predictive computational methods are largely anchored by conventional cell biology results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the same way that research focus affects the topological structure of PINs ( von Mering et al , 2002 ; Rual et al , 2005 ; Schaefer et al , 2015 ), it also affects which proteins amass functional annotations ( Pesquita et al , 2008 ). This phenomenon and its effects are well-described in the field of gene function prediction ( Greene and Troyanskaya, 2012 ; Myers et al , 2006 ; Pavlidis and Gillis, 2012 ; Schnoes et al , 2013 ). Yet, how annotation bias manifests itself in module detection remains to be investigated.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…This is especially true for gene and protein interactions extracted from literature using text mining with simple co-occurrence or co-citation statistics. Separating context specific evidence may lend better insights to improve the robustness of the results 122. Thus taking finer semantic information into text mining consideration is likely to improve the accuracy of the mined relations.…”
Section: Challenges Of Text Mining In Gene Prioritizationmentioning
confidence: 99%