The digital revolution in phenotyping

Briefings in Bioinformatics

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 819-830

  Oellrich, Anika ^a   Collier, Nigel ^b   Groza, Tudor ^c   Rebholz Schuhmann, Dietrich ^d   Shah, Nigam ^e   Bodenreider, Olivier ^f   Boland, Mary Regina ^g   Georgiev, Ivo ^h   Liu, Hongfang ⁱ   Livingston, Kevin ^h   Luna, Augustin ^j   Mallon, Ann Marie ^k   Manda, Prashanti ^l   Robinson, Peter N ^m   Rustici, Gabriella ^b   Simon, Michelle ⁿ   Wang, Liqin ^o   Winnenburg, Rainer ^e   Dumontier, Michel ^e  

^a WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c GARVAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH   (Australia)

^d NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

^e STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^g Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁱ Mayo Clinic   (United States)

^j MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^k Medical Research Council Mammalian Genetics Unit   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^m CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

ⁿ MRC MAMMALIAN GENETICS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^o UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Acquisition; Interoperability; Knowledge discovery; Phenomics; Phenotypes; Semantic representation

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; METHODOLOGY; PHENOTYPE; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH;

HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; PHENOTYPE; RESEARCH DESIGN; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84995743962     PISSN: 14675463     EISSN: 14774054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbv083     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Amberger J, Bocchini C, Hamosh A. A new face and new challenges for Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM). Human Mutation 2011; 32: 564-7.
2. Blake JA, Bult CJ, Kadin JA, et al. The Mouse Genome Database (MGD): premier model organism resource for mammalian genomics and genetics. Nucleic Acids Res 2011; 39: D842-8.
3. Tweedie S, Ashburner M, Falls K, et al. FlyBase: enhancing Drosophila Gene Ontology annotations. Nucleic Acids Research 2009; 37: D555-9.
4. Howe DG, Bradford YM, Conlin T, et al. ZFIN, the Zebrafish Model Organism Database: increased support for mutants and transgenics. Nucleic Acids Research 2013; 41: D854-60.
5. Goh KI, Cusick ME, Valle D, et al. The human disease network. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104: 8685-90.
6. Hoehndorf R, Schofield PN, Gkoutos GV. PhenomeNET: a whole-phenome approach to disease gene discovery. Nucleic Acids Res 2011; 39: e119.
7. Smedley D, Oellrich A, Köhler S, et al. PhenoDigm: analyzing curated annotations to associate animal models with human diseases. Database 2013; bat025.
8. Washington NL, Haendel MA, Mungall CJ, et al. Linking human diseases to animal models using ontology-based phenotype annotation. PLoS Biol 2009; 7: e1000247.
9. Zhou X, Menche J, Barabási AL, et al. Human symptoms-disease network. Nat Commun 2014; 5.
10. Van Driel MA, Bruggeman J, Vriend G, et al. A text-mining analysis of the human phenome. Eur J Hum Genet 2006; 14: 535-42.
11. Groth P, Pavlova N, Kalev I, et al. PhenomicDB: a new crossspecies genotype/phenotype resource. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35: D696-9.
12. Korbel JO, Doerks T, Jensen LJ, et al. Systematic association of genes to phenotypes by genome and literature mining. PLoS Biol 2005; 3: e134.
13. Hoehndorf R, Hiebert T, Hardy NW, et al. Mouse model phenotypes provide information about human drug targets. Bioinformatics 2013; 30: 719-25.
14. Kuhn M, Campillos M, Letunic I, et al. A side effect resource to capture phenotypic effects of drugs. Mol Syst Biol 2010; 6: 343.
15. Eriksson R, Werge T, Jensen LJ, et al. Dose-specific adverse drug reaction identification in electronic patient records: temporal data mining in an inpatient psychiatric population. Drug Safety 2014; 37: 237-7.
16. Lasko TA, Denny JC, Levy MA. Computational phenotype discovery using unsupervised feature learning over noisy, sparse, and irregular clinical data. eng. PLoS One 2013; 8: e66341.
17. Schulam P, Wigley F, Saria S. Clustering longitudinal clinical marker trajectories from electronic health data: applications to phenotyping and endotype discovery. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, Texas, USA, 2015.
18. LePendu P, Iyer SV, Bauer-Mehren A, et al. Pharmacovigilance using clinical notes. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013; 93: 547-55.
19. Burleigh G, Alphonse K, Alverson AJ, et al. Next-generation phenomics for the tree of life. PLoS Curr 2013; 5.
20. Mabee P, Balhoff JP, Dahdul WM, et al. 500000 fish phenotypes: The new informatics landscape for evolutionary and developmental biology of the vertebrate skeleton. J Appl Ichthyol 2012; 28: 300-5.
21. Collier N, Oellrich A, Groza T. Toward knowledge support for analysis and interpretation of complex traits. Genome Biol 2013; 14: 214.
22. Smith CL, Eppig JT. The Mammalian Phenotype Ontology as a unifying standard for experimental and high-throughput phenotyping data. Mamm Genome 2013; 23: 653-68.
23. Köhler S, Doelken SC, Mungall CJ, et al. The Human Phenotype Ontology project: linking molecular biology and disease through phenotype data. Nucleic Acids Res 2014; 42: D966-74.
24. Gkoutos GV, Mungall C, Doelken S, et al. Entity/quality-based logical definitions for the human skeletal phenome using PATO. In Proceedings of Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 2009, 7069-72.
25. Winter RM, Baraitser M, Douglas JM. A computerised data base for the diagnosis of rare dysmorphic syndromes. J Med Genet 1984; 21: 121-3.
26. Botstein D, Cherry JM, Ashburner M, et al. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet 2000; 25: 25-9.
27. Hancock JM. Commentary on Shimoyama et al. (2012): three ontologies to define phenotype measurement data. Front Genet 2014; 5.
28. Boland MR, Tatonetti NP, Hripcsak G. Development and validation of a classification approach for extracting severity automatically from electronic health records. J Biomed Semant 2015; 6: 14.
29. Greenaway S, Blake A, Retha A, et al. Automatically annotating temporal data from a phenotype-driven mutagenesis screen. In Proceedings of Phenotype Day at ISMB, Dublin, Ireland, 2015.
30. Rath A, Olry A, Dhombres F, et al. Representation of rare diseases in health information systems: the Orphanet approach to serve a wide range of end users. Hum Mutat 2012; 33: 803-8.
31. Thorn CF, Klein TE, Altman RB. PharmGKB. Methods Mol Biol 2005; 311: 179-91.
32. Sprague J, Bayraktaroglu L, Clements D, et al. The Zebrafish Information Network: the zebrafish model organism database. Nucleic Acids Res 2006; 34: D581-5.
33. Brown SDM, Moore MW. Towards an encyclopaedia of mammalian gene function: the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium. Dis Models Mech 2012; 5: 289-92.
34. Aronson AR, Lang FM. An overview of MetaMap: historical perspective and recent advances. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17: 229-36.
35. Chapman WW, Bridewell W, Hanbury P, et al. A simple algorithm for identifying negated findings and diseases in discharge summaries. JBiomed Inform 2001; 34: 301-10.
36. Friedman C, Alderson PO, Austin JH, et al. A general natural-language text processor for clinical radiology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994; 1: 161-74.
37. Khordad M, Mercer RE, Rogan P. Aduances in Artificial Intelligence. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2011, 246-57.
38. Hirschman L, Sager N, Lyman M. Automatic application of health care criteria to narrative patient records. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care, Washington D.C., USA, 1979.
39. Groza T, Hunter J, Zankl A. Mining skeletal phenotype descriptions from scientific literature. PLoS One 2013; 8: e55656.
40. Aronson AR. Effective mapping of biomedical text to the UMLS Metathesaurus: the MetaMap program. In Proceedings of American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) Annual Symposium, Washington D.C., USA, 2001, 17-21.
41. Schindelman G, et al. Worm Phenotype Ontology: Integrating phenotype data within and beyond the C. elegans community. BMC Bioinformatics 2011; 12: 32.
42. Freimer N, Sabatti C. The human phenome project. Nat Genet 2003; 34: 15-21.
43. Oellrich A, Rebholz-Schuhmann D. A classification of existing phenotypical representations and methods for improvement. In Proceedingsof the 2nd OBMLWorkshop, Mannheim, Germany, 2010.
44. Mungall CJ, Gkoutos GV, Smith CL, et al. Integrating phenotype ontologies across multiple species. Genome Biol 2010; 11: R2.
45. Shimoyama M, Nigam R, McIntosh LS, et al. Three ontologies to define phenotype measurement data. Front Genet 2012; 3: 87.
46. Hewett M, Oliver DE, Rubin DL, et al. PharmGKB: the pharmacogenetics knowledge base. Nucleic Acids Res 2002; 30: 163-5.
47. Rubin DL, Thorn CF, Klein TE, et al. A statistical approach to scanning the biomedical literature for pharmacogenetics knowledge. JAm Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12: 121-9.
48. Smith B, Ashburner M, Rosse C, et al. The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25: 1251-5.
49. White JK, Gerdin AK, Karp NA, et al. Genome-wide generation and systematic phenotyping of knockout mice reveals new roles for many genes. Cell 2013; 154: 452-64.
50. Beck T, Morgan H, Blake A, et al. Practical application ofontologies to annotate and analyse large scale raw mouse pheno-type data. BMC Bioinformatics 2009; 10: S2.
51. Girdea M, Dumitriu S, Fiume M, et al. PhenoTips: patient phenotyping software for clinical and research use. Hum Mutat 2013; 34: 1057-65.
52. Robinson PN, Webber C. Phenotype ontologies and crossspecies analysis for translational research. PLoS Genet 2014; 10: e1004268.
53. Sabb FW, Burggren AC, Higier RG, et al. Challenges in phenotype definition in the whole-genome era: multivariate models of memory and intelligence. Neuroscience 2009; 164: 88-107.
54. Savova GK, Masanz JJ, Ogren PV, et al. Mayo clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System (cTAKES): architecture, component evaluation and applications. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17: 507-13.
55. Friedman C, Shagina L, Lussier Y, et al. Automated encoding of clinical documents based on natural language processing. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11: 392-42.
56. Uzuner O, South BR, Shen S, et al. 2010 i2b2/VA challenge on concepts, assertions, and relations in clinical text. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18: 552-6.
57. Suominen H, Salantera S, Velupillai S, et al. Information Access Eualuation. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Visualization. Berlin Heidelberg; Springer, 2013, 212-31.
58. Rak R, et al. Argo: an integrative, interactive, text mining-based workbench supporting curation. Database 2012; bas010.
59. Fu X, Batista-Navarro RTB, Rak R, et al. A strategy for annotating clinical records with phenotypic information relating to the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In Proceedings of Phenotype Day at ISMB, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2014.
60. Collier N, Tran M, LeH, et al. Learning to recognize phenotype candidates in the auto-immune literature using SVM re-ranking. PLoS One 2013; 8: e72965.
61. Mouse Phenotype Database Integration Consortium, Hancock JM, Adams NC, et al. Integration of mouse phenome data resources. Mamm Genome 2007; 18: 157-63.
62. Smedley D, Schofield P, Chen CK, et al. Finding and sharing: new approaches to registries of databases and services for the biomedical sciences. Database 2010; baq014.
63. Hoehndorf R Oellrich A, Rebholz-Schuhmann D. Interoperability between phenotype and anatomy ontologies. Bioinformatics 2010; 26: 3112-18.
64. Köhler S, Doelken SC, Ruef BJ, et al. Construction and accessibility of a cross-species phenotype ontology along with gene annotations for biomedical research. F1000Res 2013; 2: 30.
65. Sarasua C, Simperl E, Noy NF. Crowdmap: Crowdsourcing Ontology Alignment with Microtasks. The Semantic Web-ISWC 2012, Springer: Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, 525-41.
66. Bodenreider O. The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32: D267-70.
67. Stearns MQ, et al. SNOMED clinical terms: overview of the development process and project status. In Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association (AIMA) Symposium, Washington D.C., USA, 2001, 662-6.
68. Cruz IF, Antonelli FP, Stroe C. AgreementMaker: efficient matching for large real-world schemas and ontologies. In Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, Lyon, France, 2009, Vol. 2, 1586-9.
69. Groth P, Weiss B, Pohlenz HD, et al. Mining phenotypes for gene function prediction. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9: 136.
70. Leonelli S, Ankeny RA. Re-thinking organisms: The impact of databases on model organism biology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 2012; 43: 29-36.
71. Papatheodorou I, Oellrich A, Smedley D. Linking gene expression to phenotypes via pathway information. JBiomed Semant 2015; 6: 17.
72. Köhler S, Schulz MH, Krawitz P, et al. Clinical diagnostics in human genetics with semantic similarity searches in ontologies. Am J Hum Genet 2009; 85: 457-64.
73. Paul R, Groza T, Hunter J, et al. Decision support methods for finding phenotype-disorder associations in the bone dysplasia domain. PLoS One 2012; 7: e50614.
74. Paul R, et al. Inferring characteristic phenotypes via class association rule mining in the bone dysplasia domain. J Biomed Inform 2013; 48: 73-83.
75. Chen R, Mias GI, Li-Pook-Than J, et al. Personal omics profiling reveals dynamic molecular and medical phenotypes. Cell 2012; 148: 1293-307.
76. Robinson PN, Köhler S, Oellrich A, et al. Improved exome prioritization of disease genes through cross-species phenotype comparison. Genome Res 2014; 24: 340-8.
77. Zemojtel T, Köhler S, Mackenroth L, et al. Effective diagnosis of genetic disease by computational phenotype analysis of the disease-associated genome. Sci Transl Med 2014; 6: 252ra123.
78. Denny JC, Bastarache L, Ritchie MD, et al. Systematic comparison of phenome-wide association study of electronic medical record data and genome-wide association study data. Nat Biotechnol 2013; 31: 1102-10.
79. Hindorff LA, Sethupathy P, Junkins HA, et al. Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009; 106: 9362-7.
80. Welter D, MacArthur J, Morales J, et al. The NHGRI GWAS Catalog, a curated resource of SNP-trait associations. Nucleic Acids Res 2014; 42: D1001-6.
81. Denny JC, Ritchie MD, Basford MA, et al. PheWAS: demonstrating the feasibility of a phenome-wide scan to discover gene-disease associations. Bioinformatics 2010; 26: 1205-10.
82. Pendergrass SA, Brown-Gentry K, Dudek SM, et al. Phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) for detection of pleiotropy within the Population Architecture using Genomics and Epidemiology (PAGE) Network. PLoS Genet 2013; e1003087.
83. Shameer K, Denny JC, Ding K, et al. A genome- and phenome-wide association study to identify genetic variants influencing platelet count and volume and their pleiotropic effects. Hum Genet 2014; 133: 95-109.
84. Kodama K, Tojjar D, Yamada S, et al. Ethnic differences in the relationship between insulin sensitivity and insulin response: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2013; 36: 1789-96.
85. Li L, Ruau DJ, Patel CJ, et al. Disease risk factors identified through shared genetic architecture and electronic medical records. Sci Transl Med 2014; 6: 234ra57.