4.7 Article

Experimental evidence validating the computational inference of functional associations from gene fusion events: a critical survey

Journal

BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 443-454

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbs072

Keywords

genome analysis; comparative genomics; gene fusion; protein interactions; proteomics; validation study

Funding

  1. FP7 Collaborative Project MICROME - European Commission [222886-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

More than a decade ago, a number of methods were proposed for the inference of protein interactions, using whole-genome information from gene clusters, gene fusions and phylogenetic profiles. This structural and evolutionary view of entire genomes has provided a valuable approach for the functional characterization of proteins, especially those without sequence similarity to proteins of known function. Furthermore, this view has raised the real possibility to detect functional associations of genes and their corresponding proteins for any entire genome sequence. Yet, despite these exciting developments, there have been relatively few cases of real use of these methods outside the computational biology field, as reflected from citation analysis. These methods have the potential to be used in high-throughput experimental settings in functional genomics and proteomics to validate results with very high accuracy and good coverage. In this critical survey, we provide a comprehensive overview of 30 most prominent examples of single pairwise protein interaction cases in small-scale studies, where protein interactions have either been detected by gene fusion or yielded additional, corroborating evidence from biochemical observations. Our conclusion is that with the derivation of a validated gold-standard corpus and better data integration with big experiments, gene fusion detection can truly become a valuable tool for large-scale experimental biology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available