Improving Protein Function Prediction using the Hierarchical Structure of the Gene Ontology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High performance and accurate protein function prediction is an important problem in molecular biology. Many contemporary ontologies, such as Gene Ontology (GO), have a hierarchical structure that can be exploited to improve the prediction accuracy, and lower the computational cost, of protein function prediction. We leverage the hierarchical structure of the ontology in two ways. First, we present a method of creating hierarchy-aware training sets for machine-learned classifiers and we show that, in the case of GO molecular function, it is the most accurate method compared to not considering the hierarchy during training. Second, we use the hierarchy to reduce the computational cost of classification. We also introduce a sound methodology for evaluating hierarchical classifiers using global cross-validation. Biologists often use sequence similarity (e.g. BLAST) to identify a " nearest neighbor" sequence and use the database annotations of this neighbor to predict protein function. In these cases, we use the hierarchy to improve accuracy by a small amount. When no similar sequences can be found (which is true for up to 40% of some common proteomes), our technique can improve accuracy by a more significant amount. Although this paper focuses on a specific important application-protein function prediction for the GO hierarchy-the techniques may be applied to any classification problem over a hierarchical ontology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".