  The ongoing functional annotation of proteins relies upon the work of
curators to capture experimental findings from scientific literature and apply
them to protein sequence and structure data. However, with the increasing use
of high-throughput experimental assays, a small number of experimental studies
dominate the functional protein annotations collected in databases. Here we
investigate just how prevalent is the "few articles -- many proteins"
phenomenon. We examine the experimentally validated annotation of proteins
provided by several groups in the GO Consortium, and show that the distribution
of proteins per published study is exponential, with 0.14% of articles
providing the source of annotations for 25% of the proteins in the UniProt-GOA
compilation. Since each of the dominant articles describes the use of an assay
that can find only one function or a small group of functions, this leads to
substantial biases in what we know about the function of many proteins.
Mass-spectrometry, microscopy and RNAi experiments dominate high throughput
experiments. Consequently, the functional information derived from these
experiments is mostly of the subcellular location of proteins, and of the
participation of proteins in embryonic developmental pathways. For some
organisms, the information provided by different studies overlap by a large
amount. We also show that the information provided by high throughput
experiments is less specific than those provided by low throughput experiments.
Given the experimental techniques available, certain biases in protein function
annotation due to high-throughput experiments are unavoidable. Knowing that
these biases exist and understanding their characteristics and extent is
important for database curators, developers of function annotation programs,
and anyone who uses protein function annotation data to plan experiments.
