  Motivation: Annotations are a key feature of many biological databases, used
to convey our knowledge of a sequence to the reader. Ideally, annotations are
curated manually, however manual curation is costly, time consuming and
requires expert knowledge and training. Given these issues and the exponential
increase of data, many databases implement automated annotation pipelines in an
attempt to avoid un-annotated entries. Both manual and automated annotations
vary in quality between databases and annotators, making assessment of
annotation reliability problematic for users. The community lacks a generic
measure for determining annotation quality and correctness, which we look at
addressing within this article. Specifically we investigate word reuse within
bulk textual annotations and relate this to Zipf's Principle of Least Effort.
We use UniProt Knowledge Base (UniProtKB) as a case study to demonstrate this
approach since it allows us to compare annotation change, both over time and
between automated and manually curated annotations.
  Results: By applying power-law distributions to word reuse in annotation, we
show clear trends in UniProtKB over time, which are consistent with existing
studies of quality on free text English. Further, we show a clear distinction
between manual and automated analysis and investigate cohorts of protein
records as they mature. These results suggest that this approach holds distinct
promise as a mechanism for judging annotation quality.
  Availability: Source code is available at the authors website:
http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/m.j.bell1/annotation.
  Contact: phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk
