@article{JiangOronClarketal.2016,
  author    = {Jiang, Yuxiang and Oron, Tal Ronnen and Clark, Wyatt T. and Bankapur, Asma R. and D'Andrea, Daniel and Lepore, Rosalba and Funk, Christopher S. and Kahanda, Indika and Verspoor, Karin M. and Ben-Hur, Asa and Koo, Da Chen Emily and Penfold-Brown, Duncan and Shasha, Dennis and Youngs, Noah and Bonneau, Richard and Lin, Alexandra and Sahraeian, Sayed M. E. and Martelli, Pier Luigi and Profiti, Giuseppe and Casadio, Rita and Cao, Renzhi and Zhong, Zhaolong and Cheng, Jianlin and Altenhoff, Adrian and Skunca, Nives and Dessimoz, Christophe and Dogan, Tunca and Hakala, Kai and Kaewphan, Suwisa and Mehryary, Farrokh and Salakoski, Tapio and Ginter, Filip and Fang, Hai and Smithers, Ben and Oates, Matt and Gough, Julian and T{\"o}r{\"o}nen, Petri and Koskinen, Patrik and Holm, Liisa and Chen, Ching-Tai and Hsu, Wen-Lian and Bryson, Kevin and Cozzetto, Domenico and Minneci, Federico and Jones, David T. and Chapman, Samuel and BKC, Dukka and Khan, Ishita K. and Kihara, Daisuke and Ofer, Dan and Rappoport, Nadav and Stern, Amos and Cibrian-Uhalte, Elena and Denny, Paul and Foulger, Rebecca E. and Hieta, Reija and Legge, Duncan and Lovering, Ruth C. and Magrane, Michele and Melidoni, Anna N. and Mutowo-Meullenet, Prudence and Pichler, Klemens and Shypitsyna, Aleksandra and Li, Biao and Zakeri, Pooya and ElShal, Sarah and Tranchevent, L{\´e}on-Charles and Das, Sayoni and Dawson, Natalie L. and Lee, David and Lees, Jonathan G. and Sillitoe, Ian and Bhat, Prajwal and Nepusz, Tam{\´a}s and Romero, Alfonso E. and Sasidharan, Rajkumar and Yang, Haixuan and Paccanaro, Alberto and Gillis, Jesse and Sede{\~n}o-Cort{\´e}s, Adriana E. and Pavlidis, Paul and Feng, Shou and Cejuela, Juan M. and Goldberg, Tatyana and Hamp, Tobias and Richter, Lothar and Salamov, Asaf and Gabaldon, Toni and Marcet-Houben, Marina and Supek, Fran and Gong, Qingtian and Ning, Wei and Zhou, Yuanpeng and Tian, Weidong and Falda, Marco and Fontana, Paolo and Lavezzo, Enrico and Toppo, Stefano and Ferrari, Carlo and Giollo, Manuel and Piovesan, Damiano and Tosatto, Silvio C. E. and del Pozo, Angela and Fern{\´a}ndez, Jos{\´e} M. and Maietta, Paolo and Valencia, Alfonso and Tress, Michael L. and Benso, Alfredo and Di Carlo, Stefano and Politano, Gianfranco and Savino, Alessandro and Rehman, Hafeez Ur and Re, Matteo and Mesiti, Marco and Valentini, Giorgio and Bargsten, Joachim W. and van Dijk, Aalt D. J. and Gemovic, Branislava and Glisic, Sanja and Perovic, Vladmir and Veljkovic, Veljko and Almeida-e-Silva, Danillo C. and Vencio, Ricardo Z. N. and Sharan, Malvika and Vogel, J{\"o}rg and Kansakar, Lakesh and Zhang, Shanshan and Vucetic, Slobodan and Wang, Zheng and Sternberg, Michael J. E. and Wass, Mark N. and Huntley, Rachael P. and Martin, Maria J. and O'Donovan, Claire and Robinson, Peter N. and Moreau, Yves and Tramontano, Anna and Babbitt, Patricia C. and Brenner, Steven E. and Linial, Michal and Orengo, Christine A. and Rost, Burkhard and Greene, Casey S. and Mooney, Sean D. and Friedberg, Iddo and Radivojac, Predrag and Veljkovic, Nevena},
  title     = {An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy},
  series = {Genome Biology},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Genome Biology},
  number    = {184},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13059-016-1037-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-166293},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background A major bottleneck in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of life is the assignment of function to proteins. While molecular experiments provide the most reliable annotation of proteins, their relatively low throughput and restricted purview have led to an increasing role for computational function prediction. However, assessing methods for protein function prediction and tracking progress in the field remain challenging. Results We conducted the second critical assessment of functional annotation (CAFA), a timed challenge to assess computational methods that automatically assign protein function. We evaluated 126 methods from 56 research groups for their ability to predict biological functions using Gene Ontology and gene-disease associations using Human Phenotype Ontology on a set of 3681 proteins from 18 species. CAFA2 featured expanded analysis compared with CAFA1, with regards to data set size, variety, and assessment metrics. To review progress in the field, the analysis compared the best methods from CAFA1 to those of CAFA2. Conclusions The top-performing methods in CAFA2 outperformed those from CAFA1. This increased accuracy can be attributed to a combination of the growing number of experimental annotations and improved methods for function prediction. The assessment also revealed that the definition of top-performing algorithms is ontology specific, that different performance metrics can be used to probe the nature of accurate predictions, and the relative diversity of predictions in the biological process and human phenotype ontologies. While there was methodological improvement between CAFA1 and CAFA2, the interpretation of results and usefulness of individual methods remain context-dependent.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ManchiaAdliAkulaetal.2013,
  author    = {Manchia, Mirko and Adli, Mazda and Akula, Nirmala and Arda, Raffaella and Aubry, Jean-Michel and Backlund, Lena and Banzato, Claudio E. M. and Baune, Bernhard T. and Bellivier, Frank and Bengesser, Susanne and Biernacka, Joanna M. and Brichant-Petitjean, Clara and Bui, Elise and Calkin, Cynthia V. and Cheng, Andrew Tai Ann and Chillotti, Caterina and Cichon, Sven and Clark, Scott and Czerski, Piotr M. and Dantas, Clarissa and Del Zompo, Maria and DePaulo, J. Raymond and Detera-Wadleigh, Sevilla D. and Etain, Bruno and Falkai, Peter and Fris{\´e}n, Louise and Frye, Mark A. and Fullerton, Jan and Gard, S{\´e}bastien and Garnham, Julie and Goes, Fernando S. and Grof, Paul and Gruber, Oliver and Hashimoto, Ryota and Hauser, Joanna and Heilbronner, Urs and Hoban, Rebecca and Hou, Liping and Jamain, St{\´e}phane and Kahn, Jean-Pierre and Kassem, Layla and Kato, Tadafumi and Kelsoe, John R. and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Kliwicki, Sebastian and Kuo, Po-Hsiu and Kusumi, Ichiro and Laje, Gonzalo and Lavebratt, Catharina and Leboyer, Marion and Leckband, Susan G. and L{\´o}pez Jaramillo, Carlos A. and Maj, Mario and Malafosse, Alain and Martinsson, Lina and Masui, Takuya and Mitchell, Philip B. and Mondimore, Frank and Monteleone, Palmiero and Nallet, Audrey and Neuner, Maria and Nov{\´a}k, Tom{\´a}s and O'Donovan, Claire and {\"O}sby, Urban and Ozaki, Norio and Perlis, Roy H. and Pfennig, Andrea and Potash, James B. and Reich-Erkelenz, Daniela and Reif, Andreas and Reininghaus, Eva and Richardson, Sara and Rouleau, Guy A. and Rybakowski, Janusz K. and Schalling, Martin and Schofield, Peter R. and Schubert, Oliver K. and Schweizer, Barbara and Seem{\"u}ller, Florian and Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Maria and Severino, Giovanni and Seymour, Lisa R. and Slaney, Claire and Smoller, Jordan W. and Squassina, Alessio and Stamm, Thomas and Steele, Jo and Stopkova, Pavla and Tighe, Sarah K. and Tortorella, Alfonso and Turecki, Gustavo and Wray, Naomi R. and Wright, Adam and Zandi, Peter P. and Zilles, David and Bauer, Michael and Rietschel, Marcella and McMahon, Francis J. and Schulze, Thomas G. and Alda, Martin},
  title     = {Assessment of Response to Lithium Maintenance Treatment in Bipolar Disorder: A Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) Report},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {6},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0065636},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-130938},
  pages     = {e65636},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Objective: The assessment of response to lithium maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder (BD) is complicated by variable length of treatment, unpredictable clinical course, and often inconsistent compliance. Prospective and retrospective methods of assessment of lithium response have been proposed in the literature. In this study we report the key phenotypic measures of the "Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with Bipolar Disorder" scale currently used in the Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) study. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine ConLiGen sites took part in a two-stage case-vignette rating procedure to examine inter-rater agreement [Kappa (\(\kappa\))] and reliability [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)] of lithium response. Annotated first-round vignettes and rating guidelines were circulated to expert research clinicians for training purposes between the two stages. Further, we analyzed the distributional properties of the treatment response scores available for 1,308 patients using mixture modeling. Results: Substantial and moderate agreement was shown across sites in the first and second sets of vignettes (\(\kappa\) = 0.66 and \(\kappa\) = 0.54, respectively), without significant improvement from training. However, definition of response using the A score as a quantitative trait and selecting cases with B criteria of 4 or less showed an improvement between the two stages (\(ICC_1 = 0.71\) and \(ICC_2 = 0.75\), respectively). Mixture modeling of score distribution indicated three subpopulations (full responders, partial responders, non responders). Conclusions: We identified two definitions of lithium response, one dichotomous and the other continuous, with moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement and reliability. Accurate phenotypic measurement of lithium response is crucial for the ongoing ConLiGen pharmacogenomic study.},
  language  = {en}
}