Ontologies in biology: Design, applications and future challenges

Nature Reviews Genetics

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 213-222

  Bard, Jonathan B L ^a   Rhee, Seung Y ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b GEOPHYSICAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARABIDOPSIS; BIOINFORMATICS; CYTOLOGY; DATA BASE; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE MAPPING; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC CODE; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; REVIEW; SEMANTICS;

ANIMALS; ARABIDOPSIS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, FACTUAL; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MICE; TERMINOLOGY;

ARABIDOPSIS;

EID: 1542290452     PISSN: 14710056     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrg1295     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. D'Souza, D. The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence (Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York, 2000).
2. Baxevanis, A. D. (ed.). Current Protocols in Bioinformatics (Wiley, New York, 2002).
3. van Heijst, G., Schreiber, A. & Wielinga, B. Using explicit ontologies in KBS development. Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies 46, 183-292 (1997).
4. Stein, L. D. Integrating biological databases. Nature Rev. Genet. 4, 337-345 (2003).
5. Simons, P. Parts: A Study in Ontology (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 1987).
6. Twigger, S. et al Rat Genome Database (RGD): mapping disease onto the genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 125-128 (2002).
7. Garcia-Hernandez, M. et al. TAIR: a resource for integrated Arabidopsis data. Funct. Integr. Genomics 2, 230-253 (2002).
8. Lawrence, C. J., Dong, Q., Polacco, M. L., Seigfried, T. E. & Brendel, V. MaizeGDB, the community database for maize genetics and genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D393-D397 (2004).
9. Drysdale, R. Phenotypic data in FlyBase. Brief Bioinform. 2, 68-80 (2001). An early example of the use of multiple ontologies to describe phenotype.
10. Ware, D. H. et al. Gramene, a tool for grass genomics. Plant Physiol. 130, 1606-1613 (2002).
11. Blake, J. A., Richardson, J. E., Bult, C. J., Kadin, J. A. & Eppig, J. T. MGD: the Mouse Genome Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 193-195 (2003).
12. Schofield, P. N. et al. Pathbase: a database of mutant mouse pathology. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D512-D515 (2004).
13. Krieger, C. J. et al. MetaCyc: a multiorganism database of metabolic pathways and enzymes. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D438-D442 (2004).
14. Hewett, M. et al. PharmGKB: the Pharmacogenetics Knowledge Base. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 163-165 (2002).
15. Hill, D. P., Blake, J. A., Richardson, J. E. & Ringwald, M. Extension and integration of the gene ontology (GO): combining GO vocabularies with external vocabulanes. Genome Res. 12, 1982-1991 (2002). Proposes a way to generate more specific ontologies by combining concepts from two orthogonal ontologies.
16. Harhay, G. P. & Keele, J. W. Positional candidate gene selection from livestock EST databases using Gene Ontology. Bioinformatics 19, 249-255 (2003).
17. Lin, J. et al. GeneCensus: genome comparisons in terms of metabolic pathway activity and protein family sharing. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 4574-4582 (2002).
18. Draghici, S. et al. Onto-Tools, the toolkit of the modem biologist: Onto-Express, Onto-Compare, Onto-Design and Onto-Translate. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 3775-3781 (2003).
19. Christie, K. R. et al. Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD) provides tools to identify and analyze sequences from Saccharomyces cerevisiae and related sequences from other organisms. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D311-D314 (2004).
20. King, O. D. et al. Predicting phenotype from patterns of annotation. Bioinformatics 19 (Suppl. 1), 1183-1189 (2003). Uses decision trees to predict phenotypes of yeast mutants on the basis of genes' annotations to GO and other phenotypic descriptions.
21. Tulipano, P. K., Millar, W. S. & Cimino, J. J. Linking molecular imaging terminology to the gene ontology (GO). Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 613-623 (2003).
22. Bodenreider, O., Mitchell, J. A. & McCray, A. T. Evaluation of the UMLS as a terminology and knowledge resource for biomedical informatics. Proc. AMIA Symp. 61-65 (2002).
23. Leroy, G. & Chen, H. Meeting medical terminology needs - the Ontology-Enhanced Medical Concept Mapper. IEEE Trans. Inf Technol. Biomed. 5, 261-270 (2001). Describes a query tool that involves the mapping of different concepts using human-created ontologies and natural language processing.
24. Bodenreider, O., Burgun, A. & Mitchell, J. A. Evaluation of WordNet as a source of lay knowledge for molecular biology and genetic diseases: a feasibility study. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 95, 379-384 (2003). Maps GO terms and NCBl's LocusUnk terms to WordNet to determine the overlap between molecular biological and lay knowledge.
25. Judd, W. S., Campbell, C. S., Kellogg, E. A., Stevens, P. F. & Donoghue, M. J. Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach (Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, 2002).
26. Cook, D. L., Farley, J. F. & Tapscott, S. J. A basis for a visual language for describing, archiving and analyzing functional models of complex biological systems. Genome Biol. 2, RESEARCH0012 (2001). Provides a lexicon of icons to graphically represent molecular biology information.
27. Sigman, M. & Cecchi, G. A. Global organization of the WordNet lexicon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 1742-1747 (2002). Applies graph theoretical calculations to analyse the organization of WordNet.
28. Ogata, H., Fujibuchi, W., Goto, S. & Kanehisa, M. A heunstic graph comparison algorithm and its application to detect functionally related enzyme clusters. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 4021-4028 (2000). Uses graph comparison methods to correlate the genome locations of microbial genes and these organisms' metabolic pathways.
29. Bard, J. Ontologies: formalising biological knowledge for bioinformatics. Bioessays 25, 501-506 (2003).
30. Rosse, C. et al. Motivation and organizational principles for anatomical knowledge representation: the digital anatomist symbolic knowledge base. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 5, 17-40 (1998), Proposes a human anatomy ontology that accommodates both the systemic and regional (topographical) views of anatomy.
31. Trombert-Paviot, B. et al. GALEN: a third generation terminology tool to support a multipurpose national coding system for surgical procedures. Int. J. Med. Inf. 58-59, 71-85 (2000). Provides an information-management architecture for handling all types of clinical data in language-independent ways.
32. Harris, M. A. et al. The Gene Ontology (GO) database and informatics resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D258-D261 (2004).
33. Hill, D. P. et al. The mouse Gene Expression Database (GXD): updates and enhancements. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D568-D571 (2004).
34. Noy, N. P. et al. Protege-2000: an open-source ontology-development and knowledge-acquisition environment. Proc. AMIA Symp. 953 (2003).