Skip to main content
Cornell University
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate
arxiv logo > cs > arXiv:1208.2175

Help | Advanced Search

arXiv logo
Cornell University Logo

quick links

  • Login
  • Help Pages
  • About

Computer Science > Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science

arXiv:1208.2175 (cs)
[Submitted on 10 Aug 2012]

Title:An approach to describing and analysing bulk biological annotation quality: a case study using UniProtKB

Authors:Michael J. Bell, Colin S. Gillespie, Daniel Swan, Phillip Lord
View a PDF of the paper titled An approach to describing and analysing bulk biological annotation quality: a case study using UniProtKB, by Michael J. Bell and 3 other authors
View PDF
Abstract:Motivation: Annotations are a key feature of many biological databases, used to convey our knowledge of a sequence to the reader. Ideally, annotations are curated manually, however manual curation is costly, time consuming and requires expert knowledge and training. Given these issues and the exponential increase of data, many databases implement automated annotation pipelines in an attempt to avoid un-annotated entries. Both manual and automated annotations vary in quality between databases and annotators, making assessment of annotation reliability problematic for users. The community lacks a generic measure for determining annotation quality and correctness, which we look at addressing within this article. Specifically we investigate word reuse within bulk textual annotations and relate this to Zipf's Principle of Least Effort. We use UniProt Knowledge Base (UniProtKB) as a case study to demonstrate this approach since it allows us to compare annotation change, both over time and between automated and manually curated annotations.
Results: By applying power-law distributions to word reuse in annotation, we show clear trends in UniProtKB over time, which are consistent with existing studies of quality on free text English. Further, we show a clear distinction between manual and automated analysis and investigate cohorts of protein records as they mature. These results suggest that this approach holds distinct promise as a mechanism for judging annotation quality.
Availability: Source code is available at the authors website: this http URL.
Contact: this http URL@newcastle.this http URL
Comments: Paper accepted at The European Conference on Computational Biology 2012 (ECCB'12). Subsequently will be published in a special issue of the journal Bioinformatics. Paper consists of 8 pages, made up of 5 figures
Subjects: Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE); Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Genomics (q-bio.GN)
Cite as: arXiv:1208.2175 [cs.CE]
  (or arXiv:1208.2175v1 [cs.CE] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1208.2175
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Related DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts372
DOI(s) linking to related resources

Submission history

From: Michael Bell BSc [view email]
[v1] Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:48:39 UTC (159 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled An approach to describing and analysing bulk biological annotation quality: a case study using UniProtKB, by Michael J. Bell and 3 other authors
  • View PDF
  • TeX Source
  • Other Formats
license icon view license
Current browse context:
cs.CE
< prev   |   next >
new | recent | 2012-08
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.IR
q-bio
q-bio.GN

References & Citations

  • NASA ADS
  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar

DBLP - CS Bibliography

listing | bibtex
Michael J. Bell
Colin S. Gillespie
Daniel Swan
Phillip W. Lord
Phillip Lord
a export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
  • Author
  • Venue
  • Institution
  • Topic

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
  • About
  • Help
  • contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact
  • subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Web Accessibility Assistance
  • arXiv Operational Status
    Get status notifications via email or slack