@article{TrafimowAmrheinAreshenkoffetal.2018, author = {Trafimow, David and Amrhein, Valentin and Areshenkoff, Corson N. and Barrera-Causil, Carlos J. and Beh, Eric J. and Bilgi{\c{c}}, Yusuf K. and Bono, Roser and Bradley, Michael T. and Briggs, William M. and Cepeda-Freyre, H{\´e}ctor A. and Chaigneau, Sergio E. and Ciocca, Daniel R. and Correa, Juan C. and Cousineau, Denis and de Boer, Michiel R. and Dhar, Subhra S. and Dolgov, Igor and G{\´o}mez-Benito, Juana and Grendar, Marian and Grice, James W. and Guerrero-Gimenez, Martin E. and Guti{\´e}rrez, Andr{\´e}s and Huedo-Medina, Tania B. and Jaffe, Klaus and Janyan, Armina and Karimnezhad, Ali and Korner-Nievergelt, Fr{\"a}nzi and Kosugi, Koji and Lachmair, Martin and Ledesma, Rub{\´e}n D. and Limongi, Roberto and Liuzza, Marco T. and Lombardo, Rosaria and Marks, Michael J. and Meinlschmidt, Gunther and Nalborczyk, Ladislas and Nguyen, Hung T. and Ospina, Raydonal and Perezgonzalez, Jose D. and Pfister, Roland and Rahona, Juan J. and Rodr{\´i}guez-Medina, David A. and Rom{\~a}o, Xavier and Ruiz-Fern{\´a}ndez, Susana and Suarez, Isabel and Tegethoff, Marion and Tejo, Mauricio and van de Schoot, Rens and Vankov, Ivan I. and Velasco-Forero, Santiago and Wang, Tonghui and Yamada, Yuki and Zoppino, Felipe C. M. and Marmolejo-Ramos, Fernando}, title = {Manipulating the Alpha Level Cannot Cure Significance Testing}, series = {Frontiers in Psychology}, volume = {9}, journal = {Frontiers in Psychology}, number = {699}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00699}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-189973}, year = {2018}, abstract = {We argue that making accept/reject decisions on scientific hypotheses, including a recent call for changing the canonical alpha level from p = 0.05 to p = 0.005, is deleterious for the finding of new discoveries and the progress of science. Given that blanket and variable alpha levels both are problematic, it is sensible to dispense with significance testing altogether. There are alternatives that address study design and sample size much more directly than significance testing does; but none of the statistical tools should be taken as the new magic method giving clear-cut mechanical answers. Inference should not be based on single studies at all, but on cumulative evidence from multiple independent studies. When evaluating the strength of the evidence, we should consider, for example, auxiliary assumptions, the strength of the experimental design, and implications for applications. To boil all this down to a binary decision based on a p-value threshold of 0.05, 0.01, 0.005, or anything else, is not acceptable.}, language = {en} } @article{SadovnickTraboulseeBernalesetal.2016, author = {Sadovnick, A. Dessa and Traboulsee, Anthony L. and Bernales, Cecily Q. and Ross, Jay P. and Forwell, Amanda L. and Yee, Irene M. and Guillot-Noel, Lena and Fontaine, Bertrand and Cournu-Rebeix, Isabelle and Alcina, Antonio and Fedetz, Maria and Izquierdo, Guillermo and Matesanz, Fuencisla and Hilven, Kelly and Dubois, B{\´e}n{\´e}dicte and Goris, An and Astobiza, Ianire and Alloza, Iraide and Antig{\"u}edad, Alfredo and Vandenbroeck, Koen and Akkad, Denis A. and Aktas, Orhan and Blaschke, Paul and Buttmann, Mathias and Chan, Andrew and Epplen, Joerg T. and Gerdes, Lisa-Ann and Kroner, Antje and Kubisch, Christian and K{\"u}mpfel, Tania and Lohse, Peter and Rieckmann, Peter and Zettl, Uwe K. and Zipp, Frauke and Bertram, Lars and Lill, Christina M. and Fernandez, Oscar and Urbaneja, Patricia and Leyva, Laura and Alvarez-Cerme{\~n}o, Jose Carlos and Arroyo, Rafael and Garagorri, Aroa M. and Garc{\´i}a-Mart{\´i}nez, Angel and Villar, Luisa M. and Urcelay, Elena and Malhotra, Sunny and Montalban, Xavier and Comabella, Manuel and Berger, Thomas and Fazekas, Franz and Reindl, Markus and Schmied, Mascha C. and Zimprich, Alexander and Vilari{\~n}o-G{\"u}ell, Carles}, title = {Analysis of Plasminogen Genetic Variants in Multiple Sclerosis Patients}, series = {G3: Genes Genomes Genetics}, volume = {6}, journal = {G3: Genes Genomes Genetics}, number = {7}, doi = {10.1534/g3.116.030841}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-165405}, pages = {2073-2079}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a prevalent neurological disease of complex etiology. Here, we describe the characterization of a multi-incident MS family that nominated a rare missense variant (p.G420D) in plasminogen (PLG) as a putative genetic risk factor for MS. Genotyping of PLG p.G420D (rs139071351) in 2160 MS patients, and 886 controls from Canada, identified 10 additional probands, two sporadic patients and one control with the variant. Segregation in families harboring the rs139071351 variant, identified p.G420D in 26 out of 30 family members diagnosed with MS, 14 unaffected parents, and 12 out of 30 family members not diagnosed with disease. Despite considerably reduced penetrance, linkage analysis supports cosegregation of PLG p.G420D and disease. Genotyping of PLG p.G420D in 14446 patients, and 8797 controls from Canada, France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, and Austria failed to identify significant association with disease (P = 0.117), despite an overall higher prevalence in patients (OR = 1.32; 95\% CI = 0.93-1.87). To assess whether additional rare variants have an effect on MS risk, we sequenced PLG in 293 probands, and genotyped all rare variants in cases and controls. This analysis identified nine rare missense variants, and although three of them were exclusively observed in MS patients, segregation does not support pathogenicity. PLG is a plausible biological candidate for MS owing to its involvement in immune system response, blood-brain barrier permeability, and myelin degradation. Moreover, components of its activation cascade have been shown to present increased activity or expression in MS patients compared to controls; further studies are needed to clarify whether PLG is involved in MS susceptibility.}, language = {en} } @article{PlanesNinolesRubioetal.2015, author = {Planes, Maria D. and Ni{\~n}oles, Regina and Rubio, Lourdes and Bissoli, Gaetano and Bueso, Eduardo and Garc{\´i}a-S{\´a}nchez, Mar{\´i}a J. and Alejandro, Santiago and Gonzalez-Guzm{\´a}n, Miguel and Hedrich, Rainer and Rodriguez, Pedro L. and Fern{\´a}ndez, Jos{\´e} A. and Serrano, Ram{\´o}n}, title = {A mechanism of growth inhibition by abscisic acid in germinating seeds of Arabidopsis thaliana based on inhibition of plasma membrane \(H^+\)-ATPase and decreased cytosolic pH, \(K^+\), and anions}, series = {Journal of Experimental Botany}, volume = {66}, journal = {Journal of Experimental Botany}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1093/jxb/eru442}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-121221}, pages = {813-25}, year = {2015}, abstract = {The stress hormone abscisic acid (ABA) induces expression of defence genes in many organs, modulates ion homeostasis and metabolism in guard cells, and inhibits germination and seedling growth. Concerning the latter effect, several mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana with improved capability for \(H^+\) efflux (wat1-1D, overexpression of AKT1 and ost2-1D) are less sensitive to inhibition by ABA than the wild type. This suggested that ABA could inhibit \(H^+\) efflux (\(H^+\)-ATPase) and induce cytosolic acidification as a mechanism of growth inhibition. Measurements to test this hypothesis could not be done in germinating seeds and we used roots as the most convenient system. ABA inhibited the root plasma-membrane H+-ATPase measured in vitro (ATP hydrolysis by isolated vesicles) and in vivo (\(H^+\) efflux from seedling roots). This inhibition involved the core ABA signalling elements: PYR/PYL/RCAR ABA receptors, ABA-inhibited protein phosphatases (HAB1), and ABA-activated protein kinases (SnRK2.2 and SnRK2.3). Electrophysiological measurements in root epidermal cells indicated that ABA, acting through the PYR/PYL/RCAR receptors, induced membrane hyperpolarization (due to \(K^+\) efflux through the GORK channel) and cytosolic acidification. This acidification was not observed in the wat1-1D mutant. The mechanism of inhibition of the \(H^+\)-ATPase by ABA and its effects on cytosolic pH and membrane potential in roots were different from those in guard cells. ABA did not affect the in vivo phosphorylation level of the known activating site (penultimate threonine) of (\(H^+\)-ATPase in roots, and SnRK2.2 phosphorylated in vitro the C-terminal regulatory domain of (\(H^+\)-ATPase while the guard-cell kinase SnRK2.6/OST1 did not.}, language = {en} } @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} }