GO evidence codes and their assigned ranks
| Evidence description | Code | Rank | |
| 1 | Inferred by curator | IC | 0 |
| 2 | Traceable author statement | TAS | 1 |
| 3 | Inferred from direct assay | IDA | 1 |
| 4 | Inferred from mutant phenotype | IMP | 2 |
| 5 | Inferred from genetic interaction | IGI | 2 |
| 6 | Inferred from physical interaction | IPI | 2 |
| 7 | Inferred from sequence or structural similarity | ISS | 3 |
| 8 | Inferred from expression pattern | IEP | 3 |
| 9 | Inferred from Reviewed Computational Analysis | RCA | 3 |
| 10 | Non-traceable author statement | NAS | 4 |
| 11 | Inferred from electronic annotation | IEA | 5 |
| 12 | No data | ND | 6 |
| 13 | No record | NR | 6 |
Please note that the evidence codes are arranged in descending order of their reliability. The order is somewhat arbitrary and merely reflects a belief that reliability of functional inferences observed from such evidences may be interpreted with the stated level of confidence.
The Evidence Rank is defined by the formula:
Evidence Rank (ER) is basically an cumulative average of the individual evidences (IE) of the annotations.
ER = IE_1, if only one GO annotation is used; ER = (IE_1+IE_2)/2 if two GO annotations are used; ER = (((IE_1+IE_2)/2) + IE_3)/2 if three GO annotations are used, and so on.
Please note that if the Evidence Rank is low, then it is a better value than high.
For example, an Evidence Rank with a value 5 would mean that the prediction was derived from all electronic annotations. Therefore even if the Bayesian weight of the prediction is high, the confidence in the result has to be interpreted with adequate caution.