Search

Motivation: Biological background knowledge plays an important role in the manual quality assurance (QA) of biological database records. One such QA task is the detection of inconsistencies in literature-based Gene Ontology Annotation (GOA). This manual verification ensures the accuracy of the GO annotations based on a comprehensive review of the literature used as evidence, Gene Ontology (GO) terms, and annotated genes in GOA records. While automatic approaches for the detection of semantic inconsistencies in GOA have been developed, they operate within predetermined contexts, lacking the ability to leverage broader evidence, especially relevant domain-specific background knowledge. This paper investigates various types of background knowledge that could improve the detection of prevalent inconsistencies in GOA. In addition, the paper proposes several approaches to integrate background knowledge into the automatic GOA inconsistency detection process., Results: We have extended a previously developed GOA inconsistency dataset with several kinds of GOA-related background knowledge, including GeneRIF statements, biological concepts mentioned within evidence texts, GO hierarchy and existing GO annotations of the specific gene. We have proposed several effective approaches to integrate background knowledge as part of the automatic GOA inconsistency detection process. The proposed approaches can improve automatic detection of self-consistency and several of the most prevalent types of inconsistencies., This is the first study to explore the advantages of utilizing background knowledge and to propose a practical approach to incorporate knowledge in automatic GOA inconsistency detection. We establish a new benchmark for performance on this task. Our methods may be applicable to various tasks that involve incorporating biological background knowledge., Availability and Implementation: https://github.com/jiyuc/de-inconsistency., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Gene Ontology (GO) terms represent the standard for annotation and representation of molecular functions, biological processes and cellular compartments, but a large gap exists between the way concepts are represented in the ontology and how they are expressed in natural language text. The construction of highly specific GO terms is formulaic, consisting of parts and pieces from more simple terms., Results: We present two different types of manually generated rules to help capture the variation of how GO terms can appear in natural language text. The first set of rules takes into account the compositional nature of GO and recursively decomposes the terms into their smallest constituent parts. The second set of rules generates derivational variations of these smaller terms and compositionally combines all generated variants to form the original term. By applying both types of rules, new synonyms are generated for two-thirds of all GO terms and an increase in F-measure performance for recognition of GO on the CRAFT corpus from 0.498 to 0.636 is observed. Additionally, we evaluated the combination of both types of rules over one million full text documents from Elsevier; manual validation and error analysis show we are able to recognize GO concepts with reasonable accuracy (88 %) based on random sampling of annotations., Conclusions: In this work we present a set of simple synonym generation rules that utilize the highly compositional and formulaic nature of the Gene Ontology concepts. We illustrate how the generated synonyms aid in improving recognition of GO concepts on two different biomedical corpora. We discuss other applications of our rules for GO ontology quality assurance, explore the issue of overgeneration, and provide examples of how similar methodologies could be applied to other biomedical terminologies. Additionally, we provide all generated synonyms for use by the text-mining community.

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.

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]

Background: The recently held Critical Assessment of Function Annotation challenge (CAFA2) required its participants to submit predictions for a large number of target proteins regardless of whether they have previous annotations or not. This is in contrast to the original CAFA challenge in which participants were asked to submit predictions for proteins with no existing annotations. The CAFA2 task is more realistic, in that it more closely mimics the accumulation of annotations over time. In this study we compare these tasks in terms of their difficulty, and determine whether cross-validation provides a good estimate of performance. Results: The CAFA2 task is a combination of two subtasks: making predictions on annotated proteins and making predictions on previously unannotated proteins. In this study we analyze the performance of several function prediction methods in these two scenarios. Our results show that several methods (structured support vector machine, binary support vector machines and guilt-by-association methods) do not usually achieve the same level of accuracy on these two tasks as that achieved by cross-validation, and that predicting novel annotations for previously annotated proteins is a harder problem than predicting annotations for uncharacterized proteins. We also find that different methods have different performance characteristics in these tasks, and that cross-validation is not adequate at estimating performance and ranking methods. Conclusions: These results have implications for the design of computational experiments in the area of automated function prediction and can provide useful insight for the understanding and design of future CAFA competitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]