MOTIVATION: From the scientific community, a lot of effort has been spent on the correct identification of gene and protein names in text, while less effort has been spent on the correct identification of chemical names. Dictionary-based term identification has the power to recognize the diverse representation of chemical information in the literature and map the chemicals to their database identifiers. RESULTS: We developed a dictionary for the identification of small molecules and drugs in text, combining information from UMLS, MeSH, ChEBI, DrugBank, KEGG, HMDB and ChemIDplus. Rule-based term filtering, manual check of highly frequent terms and disambiguation rules were applied. We tested the combined dictionary and the dictionaries derived from the individual resources on an annotated corpus, and conclude the following: (i) each of the different processing steps increase precision with a minor loss of recall; (ii) the overall performance of the combined dictionary is acceptable (precision 0.67, recall 0.40 (0.80 for trivial names); (iii) the combined dictionary performed better than the dictionary in the chemical recognizer OSCAR3; (iv) the performance of a dictionary based on ChemIDplus alone is comparable to the performance of the combined dictionary. AVAILABILITY: The combined dictionary is freely available as an XML file in Simple Knowledge Organization System format on the web site http://www.biosemantics.org/chemlist.

BACKGROUND: High-throughput experiments, such as with DNA microarrays, typically result in hundreds of genes potentially relevant to the process under study, rendering the interpretation of these experiments problematic. Here, we propose and evaluate an approach to find functional associations between large numbers of genes and other biomedical concepts from free-text literature. For each gene, a profile of related concepts is constructed that summarizes the context in which the gene is mentioned in literature. We assign a weight to each concept in the profile based on a likelihood ratio measure. Gene concept profiles can then be clustered to find related genes and other concepts. RESULTS: The experimental validation was done in two steps. We first applied our method on a controlled test set. After this proved to be successful the datasets from two DNA microarray experiments were analyzed in the same way and the results were evaluated by domain experts. The first dataset was a gene-expression profile that characterizes the cancer cells of a group of acute myeloid leukemia patients. For this group of patients the biological background of the cancer cells is largely unknown. Using our methodology we found an association of these cells to monocytes, which agreed with other experimental evidence. The second data set consisted of differentially expressed genes following androgen receptor stimulation in a prostate cancer cell line. Based on the analysis we put forward a hypothesis about the biological processes induced in these studied cells: secretory lysosomes are involved in the production of prostatic fluid and their development and/or secretion are androgen-regulated processes. CONCLUSION: Our method can be used to analyze DNA microarray datasets based on information explicitly and implicitly available in the literature. We provide a publicly available tool, dubbed Anni, for this purpose.