Identifying protein function and functional links based on large-scale co-occurrence patterns.

OBJECTIVE: The vast majority of known proteins have not been experimentally tested even at the level of measuring their expression, and the function of many proteins remains unknown. In order to decipher protein function and examine functional associations, we developed "Cliquely", a software tool based on the exploration of co-occurrence patterns. COMPUTATIONAL MODEL: Using a set of more than 23 million proteins divided into 404,947 orthologous clusters, we explored the co-occurrence graph of 4,742 fully sequenced genomes from the three domains of life. Edge weights in this graph represent co-occurrence probabilities. We use the Bron-Kerbosch algorithm to detect maximal cliques in this graph, fully-connected subgraphs that represent meaningful biological networks from different functional categories. MAIN RESULTS: We demonstrate that Cliquely can successfully identify known networks from various pathways, including nitrogen fixation, glycolysis, methanogenesis, mevalonate and ribosome proteins. Identifying the virulence-associated type III secretion system (T3SS) network, Cliquely also added 13 previously uncharacterized novel proteins to the T3SS network, demonstrating the strength of this approach. Cliquely is freely available and open source. Users can employ the tool to explore co-occurrence networks using a protein of interest and a customizable level of stringency, either for the entire dataset or for a one of the three domains-Archaea, Bacteria, or Eukarya.

Jargon use in Public Understanding of Science papers over three decades.

Public Understanding of Science is an interdisciplinary journal serving the scholarly community and practitioners. This article reports an analysis of the readability and jargon in articles published in Public Understanding of Science throughout its almost three decades of existence to examine trends in accessibility to diverse audiences. The accessibility of Public Understanding of Science articles published in 1999/2000 (47), 2009 (49) and 2019 (65) was assessed in terms of readability and use of jargon. Readability decreased and use of jargon increased between 1999 and 2000 and the two following decades for empirical and non-empirical papers, and all parts including the abstracts. An analysis of rare words shows that most are not part of the general academic vocabulary or disciplinary jargon, but rather words that appeared only in one article. Public Understanding of Science has moved away from everyday language. This does not mean it is incomprehensible to its scholarly readership, but may have consequences to other audiences such as practitioners.

Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators.

Scientists are required to communicate science and research not only to other experts in the field, but also to scientists and experts from other fields, as well as to the public and policymakers. One fundamental suggestion when communicating with non-experts is to avoid professional jargon. However, because they are trained to speak with highly specialized language, avoiding jargon is difficult for scientists, and there is no standard to guide scientists in adjusting their messages. In this research project, we present the development and validation of the data produced by an up-to-date, scientist-friendly program for identifying jargon in popular written texts, based on a corpus of over 90 million words published in the BBC site during the years 2012-2015. The validation of results by the jargon identifier, the De-jargonizer, involved three mini studies: (1) comparison and correlation with existing frequency word lists in the literature; (2) a comparison with previous research on spoken language jargon use in TED transcripts of non-science lectures, TED transcripts of science lectures and transcripts of academic science lectures; and (3) a test of 5,000 pairs of published research abstracts and lay reader summaries describing the same article from the journals PLOS Computational Biology and PLOS Genetics. Validation procedures showed that the data classification of the De-jargonizer significantly correlates with existing frequency word lists, replicates similar jargon differences in previous studies on scientific versus general lectures, and identifies significant differences in jargon use between abstracts and lay summaries. As expected, more jargon was found in the academic abstracts than lay summaries; however, the percentage of jargon in the lay summaries exceeded the amount recommended for the public to understand the text. Thus, the De-jargonizer can help scientists identify problematic jargon when communicating science to non-experts, and be implemented by science communication instructors when evaluating the effectiveness and jargon use of participants in science communication workshops and programs.