A common outcome of quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomic and phosphoproteomic experiments is a list of proteins that are differentially abundant between conditions. However, biological interpretation requires evaluation in the context of prior knowledge of biological mechanisms and protein function. One approach to facilitate mechanistic biological interpretation is to integrate such lists with biological network databases, built from manually curated resources and text mining systems. This manuscript automates this process with MSstatsBioNet, a Bioconductor package that integrates MSstats, a family of open-source packages for detecting differentially abundant proteins, and INDRA, a system that extracts biomolecular networks from biomedical literature using text mining and merges those networks with the content of curated knowledge bases. Taking as input a list of differentially abundant proteins from MSstats, MSstatsBioNet retrieves a protein subnetwork from INDRA and overlays experimental fold changes onto the underlying subnetwork. Users can then interact with the network and overlaid data, interrogating primary literature evidence to construct granular mechanistic narratives for iterative hypothesis generation. We demonstrate the utility of this approach with three case studies, two measuring changes in protein abundance and one measuring changes in phosphorylation.
Anthony Wu, Devon Kohler, Pruthvi Prakash Navada et al.· bioRxiv· 0 citations
AI tools increasingly support tasks across the scientific research cycle, from experiment design and manuscript preparation to peer review. At the same time, the continuing growth in conference submissions has increased the burden on meta-reviewers, who must synthesize reviewer feedback, author rebuttals, and manuscript revisions. To address this concern, this paper introduces Metag, a dataset to accelerate the development of meta-reviewing agents, specifically to identify changes made to scientific articles during the review-rebuttal process. Each instance contains a reviewer concern, the author's proposed resolution, and the manuscript diffs implementing the stated change. Metag is collected by obtaining manuscript versions from before the review deadline and after acceptance, computing differences between the two documents, and asking human annotators to align these differences with action items from OpenReview discussions. The resulting dataset consists of 349 high-quality action items tied to paper differences and will enable building methods to empower meta reviewers to quickly identify whether authors have addressed reviewer statements and where in the paper those changes have been made, resulting in additional transparency and traceability throughout peer review. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/microsoft/Metag-dataset.
Anirudh S. Sundar, Min Chen, Divya Tadimeti et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.