2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2011.04.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Protein annotation from protein interaction networks and Gene Ontology

Abstract: We introduce a novel method for annotating protein function that combines Naïve Bayes and association rules, and takes advantage of the underlying topology in protein interaction networks and the structure of graphs in the Gene Ontology. We apply our method to proteins from the Human Protein Reference Database (HPRD) and show that, in comparison with other approaches, it predicts protein functions with significantly higher recall with no loss of precision. Specifically, it achieves 51% precision and 60% recall… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One approach to address the challenge of identifying proteins’ functions is the computational prediction of protein functions ( Radivojac et al , 2013 ). Function prediction can use several sources of information, including protein–protein interactions ( Hou, 2017 ; Jiang and McQuay, 2012 ; Kirac and Ozsoyoglu, 2008 ; Nguyen et al , 2011 ; Sharan et al , 2007 ), genetic interactions ( Costanzo et al , 2016 ), evolutionary relations ( Gaudet et al , 2011 ), protein structures and structure prediction methods ( Konc et al , 2013 ), literature ( Verspoor, 2014 ) or combinations of these ( Sokolov and Ben-Hur, 2010 ). These methods have been developed for many years, and their predictive performance is improving steadily ( Radivojac et al , 2013 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One approach to address the challenge of identifying proteins’ functions is the computational prediction of protein functions ( Radivojac et al , 2013 ). Function prediction can use several sources of information, including protein–protein interactions ( Hou, 2017 ; Jiang and McQuay, 2012 ; Kirac and Ozsoyoglu, 2008 ; Nguyen et al , 2011 ; Sharan et al , 2007 ), genetic interactions ( Costanzo et al , 2016 ), evolutionary relations ( Gaudet et al , 2011 ), protein structures and structure prediction methods ( Konc et al , 2013 ), literature ( Verspoor, 2014 ) or combinations of these ( Sokolov and Ben-Hur, 2010 ). These methods have been developed for many years, and their predictive performance is improving steadily ( Radivojac et al , 2013 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This information may include secondary structures extracted from input protein sequences, or secondary structure, disordered regions, signal peptides, and motifs like in the case of the FFPred3 method . Finally, several approaches rely on the PPI‐derived information to accurately predict protein functions . The crucial idea behind these methods is that proteins which share similar topological features in the PPI networks may share similar functions .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These module assistant methods [5] vary in the methods used to generate function modules. Considering high noise in a PIN data and diversity of protein functions, some researchers have tried to enhance the prediction performance by incorporating other biological information [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], such as gene expression profiles, gene regulatory networks, GO similarity information, homology data, protein complex data, protein domain data and so on, to filter or to weight or to compensate the PIN data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%