Search

Motivation Literature-based gene ontology annotations (GOA) are biological database records that use controlled vocabulary to uniformly represent gene function information that is described in the primary literature. Assurance of the quality of GOA is crucial for supporting biological research. However, a range of different kinds of inconsistencies in between literature as evidence and annotated GO terms can be identified; these have not been systematically studied at record level. The existing manual-curation approach to GOA consistency assurance is inefficient and is unable to keep pace with the rate of updates to gene function knowledge. Automatic tools are therefore needed to assist with GOA consistency assurance. This article presents an exploration of different GOA inconsistencies and an early feasibility study of automatic inconsistency detection. Results We have created a reliable synthetic dataset to simulate four realistic types of GOA inconsistency in biological databases. Three automatic approaches are proposed. They provide reasonable performance on the task of distinguishing the four types of inconsistency and are directly applicable to detect inconsistencies in real-world GOA database records. Major challenges resulting from such inconsistencies in the context of several specific application settings are reported. This is the first study to introduce automatic approaches that are designed to address the challenges in current GOA quality assurance workflows. The data underlying this article are available in Github at https://github.com/jiyuc/AutoGOAConsistency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Literature-based gene ontology (GO) annotation is a process where expert curators use uniform expressions to describe gene functions reported in research papers, creating computable representations of information about biological systems. Manual assurance of consistency between GO annotations and the associated evidence texts identified by expert curators is reliable but time-consuming, and is infeasible in the context of rapidly growing biological literature. A key challenge is maintaining consistency of existing GO annotations as new studies are published and the GO vocabulary is updated. Results: In this work, we introduce a formalisation of biological database annotation inconsistencies, identifying four distinct types of inconsistency. We propose a novel and efficient method using state-of-the-art text mining models to automatically distinguish between consistent GO annotation and the different types of inconsistent GO annotation. We evaluate this method using a synthetic dataset generated by directed manipulation of instances in an existing corpus, BC4GO. We provide detailed error analysis for demonstrating that the method achieves high precision on more confident predictions. Conclusions: Two models built using our method for distinct annotation consistency identification tasks achieved high precision and were robust to updates in the GO vocabulary. Our approach demonstrates clear value for human-in-the-loop curation scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]