Using association rule mining to determine promising secondary phenotyping hypotheses

Bioinformatics

Volumn 30, Issue 12, 2014, Pages

  Oellrich, Anika ^a   Jacobsen, Julius ^a   Papatheodorou, Irene ^a   Smedley, Damian ^a  

^a WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

UBIQUINONE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ATAXIA; COENZYME Q10 DEFICIENCY; DATA MINING; DISEASES; DISORDERS OF MITOCHONDRIAL FUNCTIONS; GENE; GENETICS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MOUSE; MUSCLE WEAKNESS; PHENOTYPE;

ANIMALS; ATAXIA; DATA MINING; DISEASE; GENES; HUMANS; MICE; MITOCHONDRIAL DISEASES; MUSCLE WEAKNESS; PHENOTYPE; UBIQUINONE;

EID: 84902441151     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 14602059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu260     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Agrawal, R. et al. (1996) Fast discovery of association rules. In Fayyad, U. et al. (eds) Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, pp. 307-328.
2. Amberger, J. et al. (2011) A new face and new challenges for Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM®). Hum. Mutat., 32, 564-567.
3. Ayme, S. (2003) Orphanet, an information site on rare diseases. Soins, 672, 46-47.
4. Beck, T. et al. (2009) Practical application of ontologies to annotate and analyse large scale raw mouse phenotype data. BMC Bioinformatics, 10 (Suppl. 5), S2.
5. Borgelt, C. (2003) Efficient implementations of apriori and eclat. Workshop of Frequent Item Set Mining Implementations (FIMI2003).
6. Botstein, D. et al. (2000) Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat. Genet., 25, 25-29.
7. Brown, S.D.M. and Moore, M.W. (2012) The International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium: past and future perspectives on mouse phenotyping. Mamm. Genome Off. J. Int Mamm. Genome Soc, 23, 632-640.
8. Bult, CJ. et al. (2012) The Mouse Genome Database: genotypes, phenotypes, and models of human disease. Nucleic Acids Res., 41, 885-891.
9. Drysdale, R. and FlyBase Consortium (2008) FlyBase: a database for the Drosophila research community. Methods Mol. Biol. (Clifton, N.J.), 420, 45-59.
10. Groth, P. et al. (2007) PhenomicDB: a new cross-species genotype/phenotype resource. Nucleic Acids Res., 35, D696-D699.
11. Hanley, J.A. and McNeil, B.J. (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143, 29-36.
12. Hoehndorf, R. et al. (2011) PhenomeNET: a whole-phenome approach to disease gene discovery. Nucleic Acids Res., 39, e119.
13. Justice, MJ. (2008) Removing the cloak of invisibility: phenotyping the mouse. Dis. Models Mech., 1, 109-112.
14. Karp, N.A. et al. (2012a) Robust and sensitive analysis of mouse knockout phenotypes. PLoS One, 7, e52410.
15. Karp, N.A. et al. (2012b) The fallacy of ratio correction to address confounding factors. Lab. Anim., 46, 245-252.
16. King, O.D. et al. (2003) Predicting phenotype from patterns of annotation. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 19 (Suppl. 1), i183-i189.
17. Kumar, A. et al. (2004) Dependence relationships between Gene Ontology terms based on TIGR gene product annotations. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computational Terminology.
18. Langfelder, P. et al. (2008) Defining clusters from a hierarchical cluster tree: the Dynamic Tree Cut package for R. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 24, 719-720.
19. Leonelli, S. and Ankeny, R.A. (2012) Re-thinking organisms: the impact of databases on model organism biology. Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci., 43, 29-36.
20. Mallon, A.-M. et al. (2012) Accessing data from the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium: state of the art and future plans. Mamm. Genome Off. J. Int. Mamm. Genome Soc., 23, 641-652.
21. Manda, P. et al. (2012) Cross-ontology multi-level association rule mining in the Gene Ontology. PLoS ONE, 7, e47411.
22. McGary, K.L. et al. (2010) Systematic discovery of nonobvious human disease models through orthologous phenotypes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci., 107, 6544-6549.
23. Oti, M. et al. (2009) The biological coherence of human phenome databases. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 85, 801-808.
24. Robinson, P. et al. (2014) Improved exome prioritization of disease genes through cross species phenotype comparison. Genome Res., 24, 340-348.
25. Rosenthal, N. and Brown, S. (2007) The mouse ascending: perspectives for human-disease models. Nat. Cell Biol., 9, 993-999.
26. Schofield, P.N. et al. (2012) Mouse genetic and phenotypic resources for human genetics. Hum. Mutat., 33, 826-836.
27. Smedley, D. et al. (2013) PhenoDigm: analyzing curated annotations to associate animal models with human diseases. Database J. Biol. Databases Curation, 2013, bat025.
28. Smith, C.L. and Eppig, J.T. (2009) The mammalian phenotype ontology: enabling robust annotation and comparative analysis. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Syst. Biol. Med., 1, 390-399.
29. Valdar, W. et al. (2006) Genetic and environmental effects on complex traits in mice. Genetics, 174, 959-984.
30. van Driel, M.A. et al. (2006) A text-mining analysis of the human phenome. Eur. J. Hum. Genet., 14, 535-542.
31. Washington, N.L. et al. (2009) Linking human diseases to animal models using ontology-based phenotype annotation. PLoS Biol., 7, e1000247.
32. White, J.K. et al. (2013) Genome-wide generation and systematic phenotyping of knockout mice reveals new roles for many genes. Cell, 154, 452-464.
33. Yook, K. et al. (2012) WormBase 2012: more genomes, more data, new website. Nucleic Acids Res., 40, D735-D741.