scispace - formally typeset
S

Susan M. Bridges

Researcher at Mississippi State University

Publications -  101
Citations -  4174

Susan M. Bridges is an academic researcher from Mississippi State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Annotation & Intrusion detection system. The author has an hindex of 32, co-authored 101 publications receiving 3922 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Gene ontology annotations and resources

Judith A. Blake, +134 more
TL;DR: The Gene Ontology (GO) Consortium is a community-based bioinformatics resource that classifies gene product function through the use of structured, controlled vocabularies and has been expanded not only to cover new areas of biology through focused interaction with experts, but also to capture greater specificity in all areas of the ontology.

The Gene Ontology in 2010: extensions and refinements The Gene Ontology Consortium

Tanya Z. Berardini, +129 more
TL;DR: The Gene Ontology (GO) Consortium continues to develop, maintain and use a set of structured, controlled vocabularies for the annotation of genes, gene products and sequences and several new relationship types have been introduced and used to create links between and within the GO domains.
Journal ArticleDOI

AgBase: a functional genomics resource for agriculture

TL;DR: The AgBase database is the first database dedicated to functional genomics and systems biology analysis for agriculturally important species and their pathogens and uses experimental data to improve structural annotation of genomes and to functionally characterize gene products.

Fuzzy data mining and genetic algorithms applied to intrusion detection

TL;DR: A prototype intelligent intrusion detection system that combines both anomaly based intrusion detection using fuzzy data mining techniques and misuse detection using traditional rule-based expert system techniques is developed.
Journal ArticleDOI

Empirical comparison of ab initio repeat finding programs

TL;DR: Side-by-side evaluations of six of the most widely used ab initio repeat finding programs reveal profound differences in the utility with some identifying virtually their entire substrate as repetitive, others making reasonable estimates of repetition, and some missing almost all repeats.