4.7 Article

A Framework for Incorporating Functional Interrelationships into Protein Function Prediction Algorithms

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TCBB.2011.148

关键词

Protein function prediction; Gene Ontology; semantic similarity measure; protein-protein interaction; Gaussian random fields model

资金

  1. NSF of China [90920007, 11171354]
  2. Ministry of Education of China [SRFDP-20070558043]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The functional annotation of proteins is one of the most important tasks in the post-genomic era. Although many computational approaches have been developed in recent years to predict protein function, most of these traditional algorithms do not take interrelationships among functional terms into account, such as different GO terms usually coannotate with some common proteins. In this study, we propose a new functional similarity measure in the form of Jaccard coefficient to quantify these interrelationships and also develop a framework for incorporating GO term similarity into protein function prediction process. The experimental results of cross-validation on S. cerevisiae and Homo sapiens data sets demonstrate that our method is able to improve the performance of protein function prediction. In addition, we find that small size terms associated with a few of proteins obtain more benefit than the large size ones when considering functional interrelationships. We also compare our similarity measure with other two widely used measures, and results indicate that when incorporated into function prediction algorithms, our proposed measure is more effective. Experiment results also illustrate that our algorithms outperform two previous competing algorithms, which also take functional interrelationships into account, in prediction accuracy. Finally, we show that our method is robust to annotations in the database which are not complete at present. These results give new insights about the importance of functional interrelationships in protein function prediction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据