Evolutionary interplay between symbiotic relationships and patterns of signal peptide gain and loss

Can orthologous proteins differ in terms of their ability to be secreted? To answer this question, we investigated the distribution of signal peptides within the orthologous groups of Enterobacterales. Parsimony analysis and sequence comparisons revealed a large number of signal peptide gain and loss events, in which signal peptides emerge or disappear in the course of evolution. Signal peptide losses prevail over gains, an effect which is especially pronounced in the transition from the free-living or commensal to the endosymbiotic lifestyle. The disproportionate decline in the number of signal peptide-containing proteins in endosymbionts cannot be explained by the overall reduction of their genomes. Signal peptides can be gained and lost either by acquisition/elimination of the corresponding N-terminal regions or by gradual accumulation of mutations. The evolutionary dynamics of signal peptides in bacterial proteins represents a powerful mechanism of functional diversification

Homology-based inference sets the bar high for protein function prediction

Background: Any method that de novo predicts protein function should do better than random. More challenging, it also ought to outperform simple homology-based inference. Methods: Here, we describe a few methods that predict protein function exclusively through homology. Together, they set the bar or lower limit for future improvements. Results and conclusions: During the development of these methods, we faced two surprises. Firstly, our most successful implementation for the baseline ranked very high at CAFA1. In fact, our best combination of homology-based methods fared only slightly worse than the top-of-the-line prediction method from the Jones group. Secondly, although the concept of homology-based inference is simple, this work revealed that the precise details of the implementation are crucial: not only did the methods span from top to bottom performers at CAFA, but also the reasons for these differences were unexpected. In this work, we also propose a new rigorous measure to compare predicted and experimental annotations. It puts more emphasis on the details of protein function than the other measures employed by CAFA and may best reflect the expectations of users. Clearly, the definition of proper goals remains one major objective for CAFA

Validity of machine learning in biology and medicine increased through collaborations across fields of expertise

Machine learning (ML) has become an essential asset for the life sciences and medicine. We selected 250 articles describing ML applications from 17 journals sampling 26 different fields between 2011 and 2016. Independent evaluation by two readers highlighted three results. First, only half of the articles shared software, 64% shared data and 81% applied any kind of evaluation. Although crucial for ensuring the validity of ML applications, these aspects were met more by publications in lower-ranked journals. Second, the authors’ scientific backgrounds highly influenced how technical aspects were addressed: reproducibility and computational evaluation methods were more prominent with computational co-authors; experimental proofs more with experimentalists. Third, 73% of the ML applications resulted from interdisciplinary collaborations comprising authors from at least two of the three disciplines: computational sciences, biology, and medicine. The results suggested collaborations between computational and experimental scientists to generate more scientifically sound and impactful work integrating knowledge from both domains. Although scientifically more valid solutions and collaborations involving diverse expertise did not correlate with impact factors, such collaborations provide opportunities to both sides: computational scientists are given access to novel and challenging real-world biological data, increasing the scientific impact of their research, and experimentalists benefit from more in-depth computational analyses improving the technical correctness of work

A large-scale evaluation of computational protein function prediction.

Automated annotation of protein function is challenging. As the number of sequenced genomes rapidly grows, the overwhelming majority of protein products can only be annotated computationally. If computational predictions are to be relied upon, it is crucial that the accuracy of these methods be high. Here we report the results from the first large-scale community-based critical assessment of protein function annotation (CAFA) experiment. Fifty-four methods representing the state of the art for protein function prediction were evaluated on a target set of 866 proteins from 11 organisms. Two findings stand out: (i) today's best protein function prediction algorithms substantially outperform widely used first-generation methods, with large gains on all types of targets; and (ii) although the top methods perform well enough to guide experiments, there is considerable need for improvement of currently available tools