Cited by 2Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

A longitudinal analysis of function annotations of the human proteome reveals consistently high biases

Open access
Phan, An, Joshi, Parnal, Kadelka, Claus, Friedberg, Iddo·2025·Database

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The resources required to study gene function are limited, especially when considering the number of genes in the human genome and the complexity of their function. Therefore, genes are prioritized for experimental studies based on many different considerations, including, but not limited to, perceived biomedical importance, such as disease-associated genes, or the understanding of biological processes, such as cell signalling pathways. At the same time, most genes are not studied or are under-characterized, which hampers our understanding of their function and potential effects on human health and wellness. Understanding function annotation disparity is a necessary first step toward understanding how much functional knowledge is gained from the human genome, and toward guidelines for better targeting future studies of the genes in the human genome effectively. Here, we present a comprehensive longitudinal analysis of the human proteome utilizing data analysis tools from economics and information theory. Specifically, we view the human proteome as a population of proteins within a knowledge economy: we treat the quantified knowledge of the protein’s function as the analogue of wealth and examine the distribution of information in a population of proteins in the proteome in the same manner distribution of wealth is studied in societies. Our results show a highly skewed distribution of information about human proteins over the last decade, in which the inequality in the annotations given to the proteins remains high. Additionally, we examine the correlation between the knowledge about protein function as captured in databases and the interest in proteins as reflected by mentions in the scientific literature. We show a large gap between knowledge and interest and dissect the factors leading to this gap. In conclusion, our study shows that research efforts should be redirected to less studied proteins to mitigate the disparity among human proteins both in databases and literature.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/database/baaf036

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phan, A., Joshi, P., Kadelka, C., & Friedberg, I.
Affiliations
Iowa State University (US)
Corresponding author
Friedberg, Iddo
Venue
Database
Published
2025
Volume
2025
ISSN
1758-0463 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410191772
Cited by
2
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Database (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1r01gm145937-01a1)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM145937)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
human proteome, protein annotation, annotation bias, knowledge inequality, information theory, research prioritization, functional genomics database
MeSH terms
Humans, Genome, Human, Proteome, Databases, Protein, Molecular Sequence Annotation

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