AI-Based Comparison of UniProt annotations and Literature Across Human Kinases
Pei, J.; Cong, Q.; Zhang, J.; Grishin, N. V.
Show abstract
Curated protein records and their supporting publications organize biological evidence at different levels of detail. Here, we used AI to independently answer a set of biological questions using either UniProt records or the full texts of the literature cited by those records, and then used AI-based evaluation to compare the resulting answers in terms of information coverage and semantic agreement. Fifty human proteins were selected from ten groups in a kinase sequence collection. Target-identity filtering retained 1,749 protein-publication records representing 1,655 distinct publications. For each protein, an AI language model generated one answer set from UniProt and another from the associated literature. A separate AI-based semantic evaluation compared all 2,500 pairwise combinations of the 50 UniProt-derived and 50 literature-derived answer sets, producing 87,500 question-level comparisons. Literature provided answers to 1,211 of 1,750 protein-question combinations, compared with 1,151 for UniProt. After correction for multiple testing across the 35 questions, literature coverage was significantly higher for autoinhibition and inhibitor type. Mean AI-assigned semantic agreement scores were higher for matched protein pairs (0.692) than for unmatched proteins within the same kinase group (0.384) and for proteins from different kinase groups (0.279). The matching literature-derived answer set ranked first for 49 of the 50 UniProt-derived queries, even after questions about gene symbol and kinase family were excluded. The sole exception was GUCY2C, whose UniProt-derived answer set showed slightly greater agreement with the NPR2 literature-derived answer set than with the GUCY2C literature-derived set. TYR proteins had the greatest overall answer coverage, whereas CK1 and RGC proteins had comparatively limited coverage in UniProt and the literature, respectively. Overall, AI analysis showed that UniProt records and their cited publications contain complementary yet strongly protein-specific biological information. Reporting gaps, question scope, and score aggregation influenced apparent agreement, underscoring that the framework evaluates consistency between AI-derived answers, not their biological accuracy.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- GOcats: A tool for categorizing Gene Ontology into subgraphs of user-defined concepts 92%
- Proteome-scale prediction of molecular mechanisms underlying dominant genetic diseases 90%
- dagLogo: an R/Bioconductor package for identifying and visualizing differential amino acid group usage in proteomics data 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Lit-OTAR Framework for Extracting Biological Evidences from Literature 92%
- Beyond the Leaderboard: Leveraging Predictive Modeling for Protein-Ligand Insights and Discovery 91%
- FuncFetch: An LLM-assisted workflow enables mining thousands of enzyme-substrate interactions from published manuscripts 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Accurate Prediction of Kinase-Substrate Networks Using Knowledge Graphs 91%
- Zero-shot segmentation using embeddings from a protein language model identifies functional regions in the human proteome 91%
- Paying Attention to Attention: High Attention Sites as Indicators of Protein Family and Function in Language Models 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.