Extraction of protein interaction data: a comparative analysis of methods in use

Authors:
Hena Jose;Thangavel Vadivukarasi;Jyothi Devakumar
Affiliations:
Jubilant Biosys Ltd., Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore, India;Jubilant Biosys Ltd., Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore, India;Jubilant Biosys Ltd., Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore, India
Venue:
EURASIP Journal on Bioinformatics and Systems Biology
Year:
2007

Citing 6
Cited 1

Extracting human protein interactions from MEDLINE using a full-sentence parser

Bioinformatics
BioRAT: extracting biological information from full-length papers

Bioinformatics
Discovering patterns to extract protein--protein interactions from full texts

Bioinformatics
Literature mining and database annotation of protein phosphorylation using a rule-based system

Bioinformatics
Finding the evidence for protein-protein interactions from PubMed abstracts

Bioinformatics
IntEx: a syntactic role driven protein-protein interaction extractor for bio-medical text

ISMB '05 Proceedings of the ACL-ISMB Workshop on Linking Biological Literature, Ontologies and Databases: Mining Biological Semantics

PIMiner: a web tool for extraction of protein interactions from biomedical literature

International Journal of Data Mining and Bioinformatics

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Several natural language processing tools, both commercial and freely available, are used to extract protein interactions from publications. Methods used by these tools include pattern matching to dynamic programming with individual recall and precision rates. A methodical survey of these tools, keeping in mind the minimum interaction information a researcher would need, in comparison to manual analysis has not been carried out. We compared data generated using some of the selected NLP tools with manually curated protein interaction data (PathArt and IMaps) to comparatively determine the recall and precision rate. The rates were found to be lower than the published scores when a normalized definition for interaction is considered. Each data point captured wrongly or not picked up by the tool was analyzed. Our evaluation brings forth critical failures of NLP tools and provides pointers for the development of an ideal NLP tool.