Exploring the human genome with functional maps.

Human genomic data of many types are readily available, but the complexity and scale of human molecular biology make it difficult to integrate this body of data, understand it from a systems level, and apply it to the study of specific pathways or genetic disorders. An investigator could best explore a particular protein, pathway, or disease if given a functional map summarizing the data and interactions most relevant to his or her area of interest. Using a regularized Bayesian integration system, we provide maps of functional activity and interaction networks in over 200 areas of human cellular biology, each including information from approximately 30,000 genome-scale experiments pertaining to approximately 25,000 human genes. Key to these analyses is the ability to efficiently summarize this large data collection from a variety of biologically informative perspectives: prediction of protein function and functional modules, cross-talk among biological processes, and association of novel genes and pathways with known genetic disorders. In addition to providing maps of each of these areas, we also identify biological processes active in each data set. Experimental investigation of five specific genes, AP3B1, ATP6AP1, BLOC1S1, LAMP2, and RAB11A, has confirmed novel roles for these proteins in the proper initiation of macroautophagy in amino acid-starved human fibroblasts. Our functional maps can be explored using HEFalMp (Human Experimental/Functional Mapper), a web interface allowing interactive visualization and investigation of this large body of information.

Finding function: evaluation methods for functional genomic data.

BACKGROUND: Accurate evaluation of the quality of genomic or proteomic data and computational methods is vital to our ability to use them for formulating novel biological hypotheses and directing further experiments. There is currently no standard approach to evaluation in functional genomics. Our analysis of existing approaches shows that they are inconsistent and contain substantial functional biases that render the resulting evaluations misleading both quantitatively and qualitatively. These problems make it essentially impossible to compare computational methods or large-scale experimental datasets and also result in conclusions that generalize poorly in most biological applications. RESULTS: We reveal issues with current evaluation methods here and suggest new approaches to evaluation that facilitate accurate and representative characterization of genomic methods and data. Specifically, we describe a functional genomics gold standard based on curation by expert biologists and demonstrate its use as an effective means of evaluation of genomic approaches. Our evaluation framework and gold standard are freely available to the community through our website. CONCLUSION: Proper methods for evaluating genomic data and computational approaches will determine how much we, as a community, are able to learn from the wealth of available data. We propose one possible solution to this problem here but emphasize that this topic warrants broader community discussion.