The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mining literature for protein–protein interactions
Abstract
Motivation: A central problem in bioinformatics is how to capture information from the vast current scientific literature in a form suitable for analysis by computer. We address the special case of information on protein–protein interactions, and show that the frequencies of words in Medline abstracts can be used to determine whether or not a given paper discusses protein–protein interactions. For those papers determined to discuss this topic, the relevant information can be captured for the Database of Interacting Proteins. Furthermore, suitable gene annotations can also be captured. Results: Our Bayesian approach scores Medline abstracts for probability of discussing the topic of interest according to the frequencies of discriminating words found in the abstract. More than 80 discriminating words (e.g. complex, interaction, two-hybrid) were determined from a training set of 260 Medline abstracts corresponding to previously validated entries in the Database of Interacting Proteins. Using these words and a log likelihood scoring function, \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \({\sim}\) \end{document}2000 Medline abstracts were identified as describing interactions between yeast proteins. This approach now forms the basis for the rapid expansion of the Database of Interacting Proteins. Contact: marcotte@icmb.utexas.edu; ixenario@mbi.ucla.edu; david@mbi.ucla.edu * These authors contributed equally to this work.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Applied Bayesian and Classical Inference
Mosteller, F., & Wallace, D. L. (1984) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5256-6 · Cited by 195
Cited by
The Database of Interacting Proteins: 2004 update
Salwinski, L. (2004) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh086 · Cited by 2,271
von Mering, C. (2004) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gki005 · Cited by 1,764
Xenarios, I. (2002) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/30.1.303 · Cited by 1,741
Self-citationLiterature mining for the biologist: from information retrieval to biological discovery
Jensen, L. J., Saric, J., & Bork, P. (2006) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1768 · Cited by 631
Comparative experiments on learning information extractors for proteins and their interactions
Bunescu, R., Ge, R., Kate, R. J., Marcotte, E. M., Mooney, R. J., Ramani, A. K., & Wong, Y. W. (2005) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2004.07.016 · Cited by 428
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Marcotte, E. M., Xenarios, I., & Eisenberg, D.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-04-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 359-363
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W2104768328
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mining literature for protein–protein interactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/17.4.359
- The paper
- Marcotte, E. M., Xenarios, I., & Eisenberg, D. (2001). Mining literature for protein–protein interactions. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/17.4.359
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.