How often does automatic annotation give results that are consistent with manual annotation?
In general, electronic annotations are rarely incorrect, as they are annotations to very high-level GO terms. For example, the GOA group at EBI reports: Usually manual annotation simply provides deeper-level terms in GO. In 93% of cases GOA’s electronic annotation is in the same GO lineage as the manual annotation. Some users have used our manual annotation to assess the quality of their automatic GO annotation techniques. They have found a few manual annotation errors by Proteome Inc. but no errors (so far) of manual annotation by Swiss-Prot staff have been reported to GOA. A few InterPro2GO errors have been reported but not very many. So, in general, our electronic techniques are very accurate, and are sometimes based on manual annotation. For example, Swiss-Prot keywords are usually manually annotated to Swiss-Prot entries; by using a mapping of Swiss-Prot keywords to GO, GOA inherits the high quality of Swiss-Prot manual annotation. There has been further investigation into this to
