GOcats: A Tool for Categorizing Gene Ontology into Subgraphs of User-Defined Concepts

Gene Ontology is used extensively in scientific knowledgebases and repositories to organize a wealth of biological information. However, interpreting annotations derived from differential gene lists is often difficult without manually sorting into higher-order categories. To address these issues, we present GOcats, a novel tool that organizes the Gene Ontology (GO) into subgraphs representing user-defined concepts, while ensuring that all appropriate relations are congruent with respect to scoping semantics. We tested GOcats performance using subcellular location categories to mine annotations from GO-utilizing knowledgebases and evaluated their accuracy against immunohistochemistry datasets in the Human Protein Atlas (HPA). In comparison to term categorizations generated from UniProt’s controlled vocabulary and from GO slims via OWLTools’ Map2Slim, GOcats outperformed these methods in its ability to mimic human-categorized GO term sets. Unlike the other methods, GOcats relies only on an input of basic keywords from the user (e.g. biologist), not a manually compiled or static set of top-level GO terms. Additionally, by identifying and properly defining relations with respect to semantic scope, GOcats can utilize the traditionally problematic relation, has_part, without encountering erroneous term mapping. We applied GOcats in the comparison of HPA-sourced knowledgebase annotations to experimentally-derived annotations provided by HPA directly. During the comparison, GOcats improved correspondence between the annotation sources by adjusting semantic granularity. GOcats enables the creation of custom, GO slim-like filters to map fine-grained gene annotations from gene annotation files to general subcellular compartments without needing to hand-select a set of GO terms for categorization. Moreover, GOcats can customize the level of semantic specificity for annotation categories. Furthermore, GOcats enables a safe and more comprehensive semantic scoping utilization of go-core, allowing for a more complete utilization of information available in GO. Together, these improvements can impact a variety of GO knowledgebase data mining use-cases as well as knowledgebase curation and quality control

FunSpec: a web-based cluster interpreter for yeast

BACKGROUND: For effective exposition of biological information, especially with regard to analysis of large-scale data types, researchers need immediate access to multiple categorical knowledge bases and need summary information presented to them on collections of genes, as opposed to the typical one gene at a time. RESULTS: We present here a web-based tool (FunSpec) for statistical evaluation of groups of genes and proteins (e.g. co-regulated genes, protein complexes, genetic interactors) with respect to existing annotations (e.g. functional roles, biochemical properties, localization). FunSpec is available online at http://funspec.med.utoronto.ca CONCLUSION: FunSpec is helpful for interpretation of any data type that generates groups of related genes and proteins, such as gene expression clustering and protein complexes, and is useful for predictive methods employing "guilt-by-association.

Predicting protein linkages in bacteria: Which method is best depends on task

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Applications of computational methods for predicting protein functional linkages are increasing. In recent years, several bacteria-specific methods for predicting linkages have been developed. The four major genomic context methods are: Gene cluster, Gene neighbor, Rosetta Stone, and Phylogenetic profiles. These methods have been shown to be powerful tools and this paper provides guidelines for when each method is appropriate by exploring different features of each method and potential improvements offered by their combination. We also review many previous treatments of these prediction methods, use the latest available annotations, and offer a number of new observations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Using <it>Escherichia coli </it>K12 and <it>Bacillus subtilis</it>, linkage predictions made by each of these methods were evaluated against three benchmarks: functional categories defined by COG and KEGG, known pathways listed in EcoCyc, and known operons listed in RegulonDB. Each evaluated method had strengths and weaknesses, with no one method dominating all aspects of predictive ability studied. For functional categories, as previous studies have shown, the Rosetta Stone method was individually best at detecting linkages and predicting functions among proteins with shared KEGG categories while the Phylogenetic profile method was best for linkage detection and function prediction among proteins with common COG functions. Differences in performance under COG versus KEGG may be attributable to the presence of paralogs. Better function prediction was observed when using a weighted combination of linkages based on reliability versus using a simple unweighted union of the linkage sets. For pathway reconstruction, 99 complete metabolic pathways in <it>E. coli </it>K12 (out of the 209 known, non-trivial pathways) and 193 pathways with 50% of their proteins were covered by linkages from at least one method. Gene neighbor was most effective individually on pathway reconstruction, with 48 complete pathways reconstructed. For operon prediction, Gene cluster predicted completely 59% of the known operons in <it>E. coli </it>K12 and 88% (333/418)in <it>B. subtilis</it>. Comparing two versions of the <it>E. coli </it>K12 operon database, many of the unannotated predictions in the earlier version were updated to true predictions in the later version. Using only linkages found by both Gene Cluster and Gene Neighbor improved the precision of operon predictions. Additionally, as previous studies have shown, combining features based on intergenic region and protein function improved the specificity of operon prediction.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A common problem for computational methods is the generation of a large number of false positives that might be caused by an incomplete source of validation. By comparing two versions of a database, we demonstrated the dramatic differences on reported results. We used several benchmarks on which we have shown the comparative effectiveness of each prediction method, as well as provided guidelines as to which method is most appropriate for a given prediction task.</p