Cited by 58Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

GOLEM: an interactive graph-based gene-ontology navigation and analysis tool

Open access
Sealfon, Rachel SG, Hibbs, Matthew A, Huttenhower, Curtis, Myers, Chad L, Troyanskaya, Olga G·2006·BMC Bioinformatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Gene Ontology has become an extremely useful tool for the analysis of genomic data and structuring of biological knowledge. Several excellent software tools for navigating the gene ontology have been developed. However, no existing system provides an interactively expandable graph-based view of the gene ontology hierarchy. Furthermore, most existing tools are web-based or require an Internet connection, will not load local annotations files, and provide either analysis or visualization functionality, but not both. RESULTS: To address the above limitations, we have developed GOLEM (Gene Ontology Local Exploration Map), a visualization and analysis tool for focused exploration of the gene ontology graph. GOLEM allows the user to dynamically expand and focus the local graph structure of the gene ontology hierarchy in the neighborhood of any chosen term. It also supports rapid analysis of an input list of genes to find enriched gene ontology terms. The GOLEM application permits the user either to utilize local gene ontology and annotations files in the absence of an Internet connection, or to access the most recent ontology and annotation information from the gene ontology webpage. GOLEM supports global and organism-specific searches by gene ontology term name, gene ontology id and gene name. CONCLUSION: GOLEM is a useful software tool for biologists interested in visualizing the local directed acyclic graph structure of the gene ontology hierarchy and searching for gene ontology terms enriched in genes of interest. It is freely available both as an application and as an applet at http://function.princeton.edu/GOLEM.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2105-7-443

Cites

14 of 14 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Biological ontologies are large hierarchies with a DAG structure, so existing tools for visualizing ontologies can have direct application to data-driven multiscale models.

    “Biological ontologies are large hierarchies which also have a DAG structure; as such, existing tools for visualizing ontologies can also have direct application to data-driven multiscale models (Binns et al., 2009; Eden et al., 2009; Sealfon et al., 2006; Supek et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2019).”

    From Mapping the multiscale structure of biological systems (2021) · cites this paper as Sealfon et al., 2006

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
Sealfon, R. S., Hibbs, M. A., Huttenhower, C., Myers, C. L., & Troyanskaya, O. G.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Troyanskaya, Olga G
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2006-10-10
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
443-443
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1912468900
Cited by
58
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Mouseion at the JAXlibrary (Jackson Laboratory) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0513552, P50 GM071508, 9972930)
  • National Institutes of Health (GM071508, HG003284)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (T32HG003284)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM071508, R01GM071966, GM071966, P50GM071508)
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
Gene Ontology, Golem, network visualization, ontological hierarchy, gene ontology enrichment, directed acyclic graphs, genome annotation, software tools
MeSH terms
Computer Graphics, Database Management Systems, Documentation, Proteins, Software, User-Computer Interface, Information Storage and Retrieval, Protein Interaction Mapping, Databases, Protein

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