Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

John Maslen

dblp:08/1618 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
High-performance computing · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology
functional genomics
0.212014
InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification · Bioinform. 2014
Bioinformatics and computational biology › protein function prediction
protein classification
0.212014
InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification · Bioinform. 2014
Bioinformatics and computational biology
protein function prediction
0.212014
InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification · Bioinform. 2014
High-performance computing
cluster computing
0.112014
InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification · Bioinform. 2014

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

distributed data analysis · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification
abstract
Abstract Motivation: Robust large-scale sequence analysis is a major challenge in modern genomic science, where biologists are frequently trying to characterize many millions of sequences. Here, we describe a new Java-based architecture for the widely used protein function prediction software package InterProScan. Developments include improvements and additions to the outputs of the software and the complete reimplementation of the software framework, resulting in a flexible and stable system that is able to use both multiprocessor machines and/or conventional clusters to achieve scalable distributed data analysis. InterProScan is freely available for download from the EMBl-EBI FTP site and the open source code is hosted at Google Code. Availability and implementation: InterProScan is distributed via FTP at ftp://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/software/unix/iprscan/5/ and the source code is available from http://code.google.com/p/interproscan/. Contact: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/support or [email protected] or [email protected]
Philip Jones, David Binns, Hsin-Yu Chang, Matthew Fraser, Weizhong Li 0001, Craig McAnulla, Hamish McWilliam, John Maslen, Alex L. Mitchell, Gift Nuka, Sebastien Pesseat, Antony F. Quinn, Amaia Sangrador-Vegas, Maxim Scheremetjew, Siew-Yit Yong, Rodrigo Lopez, Sarah Hunter
Bioinform.8
2005 An evaluation of GO annotation retrieval for BioCreAtIvE and GOA
abstract
BACKGROUND: The Gene Ontology Annotation (GOA) database http://www.ebi.ac.uk/GOA aims to provide high-quality supplementary GO annotation to proteins in the UniProt Knowledgebase. Like many other biological databases, GOA gathers much of its content from the careful manual curation of literature. However, as both the volume of literature and of proteins requiring characterization increases, the manual processing capability can become overloaded. Consequently, semi-automated aids are often employed to expedite the curation process. Traditionally, electronic techniques in GOA depend largely on exploiting the knowledge in existing resources such as InterPro. However, in recent years, text mining has been hailed as a potentially useful tool to aid the curation process. To encourage the development of such tools, the GOA team at EBI agreed to take part in the functional annotation task of the BioCreAtIvE (Critical Assessment of Information Extraction systems in Biology) challenge. BioCreAtIvE task 2 was an experiment to test if automatically derived classification using information retrieval and extraction could assist expert biologists in the annotation of the GO vocabulary to the proteins in the UniProt Knowledgebase. GOA provided the training corpus of over 9000 manual GO annotations extracted from the literature. For the test set, we provided a corpus of 200 new Journal of Biological Chemistry articles used to annotate 286 human proteins with GO terms. A team of experts manually evaluated the results of 9 participating groups, each of which provided highlighted sentences to support their GO and protein annotation predictions. Here, we give a biological perspective on the evaluation, explain how we annotate GO using literature and offer some suggestions to improve the precision of future text-retrieval and extraction techniques. Finally, we provide the results of the first inter-annotator agreement study for manual GO curation, as well as an assessment of our current electronic GO annotation strategies. RESULTS: The GOA database currently extracts GO annotation from the literature with 91 to 100% precision, and at least 72% recall. This creates a particularly high threshold for text mining systems which in BioCreAtIvE task 2 (GO annotation extraction and retrieval) initial results precisely predicted GO terms only 10 to 20% of the time. CONCLUSION: Improvements in the performance and accuracy of text mining for GO terms should be expected in the next BioCreAtIvE challenge. In the meantime the manual and electronic GO annotation strategies already employed by GOA will provide high quality annotations.
Evelyn Camon, Daniel Barrell, Emily Dimmer, Vivian Lee, Michele Magrane, John Maslen, David Binns, Rolf Apweiler
BMC Bioinform.6