Accurate evaluation and analysis of functional genomics data and methods

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Volumn 1260, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 95-100

  Greene, Casey S ^a   Troyanskaya, Olga G ^a,b  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Princeton University   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioinformatics; Evaluation; Functional genomics

Indexed keywords

MESSENGER RNA;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BIOINFORMATICS; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; DNA DAMAGE; DNA REPAIR; FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS; FUNDING; PHENOTYPE; RIBOSOME; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE;

EID: 84864057493     PISSN: 00778923     EISSN: 17496632     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06383.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Hieter, P. & M. Boguski. 1997. Functional genomics: it's all how you read it. Science 278: 601-602.
2. Vaske, C.J. et al. 2010. Inference of patient-specific pathway activities from multi-dimensional cancer genomics data using PARADIGM. Bioinformatics 26: i237-i245.
3. Louie, B., P. Mork, F. Martin-Sanchez, et al. 2007. Data integration and genomic medicine. J. Biomed. Inform. 40: 5-16.
4. Fraser, A.G. & E.M. Marcotte. 2004. A probabilistic view of gene function. Nat. Genet. 36: 559-564.
5. Pena-Castillo, L. et al. 2008. A critical assessment of Mus musculus gene function prediction using integrated genomic evidence. Genome Biol. 9(Suppl 1): S2.
6. Mostafavi, S., D. Ray, D. Warde-Farley, et al. 2008. GeneMANIA: a real-time multiple association network integration algorithm for predicting gene function. Genome. Biol. 9 Suppl 1: S4.
7. Hart, G.T., I. Lee & E.R. Marcotte. 2007. A high-accuracy consensus map of yeast protein complexes reveals modular nature of gene essentiality. BMC Bioinformatics 8: 236.
8. Warde-Farley, D. et al. 2010. The GeneMANIA prediction server: biological network integration for gene prioritization and predicting gene function. Nucleic Acids Res. 38: W214-W220.
9. Setlur, S.R. et al. 2007. Integrative microarray analysis of pathways dysregulated in metastatic prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 67: 10296-10303.
10. Lee, I. et al. 2008. A single gene network accurately predicts phenotypic effects of gene perturbation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat. Genet. 40: 181-188.
11. Myers, C.L., D.R. Barrett, M.A. Hibbs, et al. 2006. Finding function: evaluation methods for functional genomic data. BMC Genomics 7: 187.
12. Ashburner, M. et al. 2000. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The gene ontology consortium. Nat. Genet. 25: 25-29.
13. Reference Genome Group of the Gene Ontology Consortium. 2009. The Gene Ontology's Reference Genome Project: a unified framework for functional annotation across species. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5: e1000431.
14. Kanehisa, M. et al. 1999. KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 27: 29-34.
15. Huttenhower, C. et al. 2009. The impact of incomplete knowledge on evaluation: an experimental benchmark for protein function prediction. Bioinformatics 25: 2404-2410.
16. Hibbs, M.A. et al. 2009. Directing experimental biology: a case study in mitochondrial biogenesis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5: e1000322.
17. Gillis, J. & P. Pavlidis. 2011. The impact of multifunctional genes on "guilt by association" analysis. PLoS One 6: e17258.
18. King, R.D., A. Karwath, A. Clare, et al. 2000. Accurate prediction of protein functional class from sequence in the Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Escherichia coli genomes using data mining. Yeast 17: 283-293.
19. Kasif, S. et al. 2004. Whole-genome annotation by using evidence integration in functional-linkage networks. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 2888-2893.
20. Massjouni, N., C.G. Rivera & T.M. Murali. 2006. VIRGO: computational prediction of gene functions. Nucleic Acids Res. 34: W340-W344.
21. Chen, Y., Z. Li & J. Liu. 2009. Learning Kernel Matrix from Gene Ontology and Annotation Data for Protein Function Prediction Advances in Neural Networks-ISNN 2009. Vol. 5553 W. Yu, H. He & N. Zhang, Eds.: 694-703. Springer. Berlin/Heidelberg.
22. Lippert, C., Z. Ghahramani & K.M. Borgwardt. 2010. Gene function prediction from synthetic lethality networks via ranking on demand. Bioinformatics 26: 912-918.
23. Kourmpetis, Y.A., A.D. van Dijk, M.C. Bink, et al. 2010. Bayesian Markov Random Field analysis for protein function prediction based on network data. PLoS One 5: e9293.
24. Lord, P.W., R.D. Stevens, A. Brass, et al. 2003. Investigating semantic similarity measures across the gene ontology: the relationship between sequence and annotation. Bioinformatics 19: 1275-1283.
25. Hess, D.C. et al. 2009. Computationally driven, quantitative experiments discover genes required for mitochondrial biogenesis. PLoS Genet 5: e1000407.
26. Kasif, S. et al. 2011. COMBREX: a project to accelerate the functional annotation of prokaryotic genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 39: D11-D14.
27. Gerstein, M., M. Seringhaus & S. Fields. 2007. Structured digital abstract makes text mining easy. Nature 447: 142.
28. Ripple, A.M., J.G. Mork, L.S. Knecht, et al. 2011. A retrospective cohort study of structured abstracts in MEDLINE, 1992-2006. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 99: 160-163.
29. Greene, C.S. & O.G. Troyanskaya. 2011. PILGRM: an interactive data-driven discovery platform for expert biologists. Nucleic Acids Res. 39: W368-W374.