Harold J. Drabkin

The Gene Ontology (GO) database and informatics resource.

The Gene Ontology (GO) project (http://www. geneontology.org/) provides structured, controlled vocabularies and classifications that cover several domains of molecular and cellular biology and are freely available for community use in the annotation of genes, gene products and sequences. Many model organism databases and genome annotation groups use the GO and contribute their annotation sets to the GO resource. The GO database integrates the vocabularies and contributed annotations and provides full access to this information in several formats. Members of the GO Consortium continually work collectively, involving outside experts as needed, to expand and update the GO vocabularies. The GO Web resource also provides access to extensive documentation about the GO project and links to applications that use GO data for functional analyses.

The Protein Ontology: a structured representation of protein forms and complexes

The Protein Ontology (PRO) provides a formal, logically-based classification of specific protein classes including structured representations of protein isoforms, variants and modified forms. Initially focused on proteins found in human, mouse and Escherichia coli, PRO now includes representations of protein complexes. The PRO Consortium works in concert with the developers of other biomedical ontologies and protein knowledge bases to provide the ability to formally organize and integrate representations of precise protein forms so as to enhance accessibility to results of protein research. PRO (http://pir.georgetown.edu/pro) is part of the Open Biomedical Ontology Foundry.

An overview of the BioCreative 2012 Workshop Track III: interactive text mining task.

In many databases, biocuration primarily involves literature curation, which usually involves retrieving relevant articles, extracting information that will translate into annotations and identifying new incoming literature. As the volume of biological literature increases, the use of text mining to assist in biocuration becomes increasingly relevant. A number of groups have developed tools for text mining from a computer science/linguistics perspective, and there are many initiatives to curate some aspect of biology from the literature. Some biocuration efforts already make use of a text mining tool, but there have not been many broad-based systematic efforts to study which aspects of a text mining tool contribute to its usefulness for a curation task. Here, we report on an effort to bring together text mining tool developers and database biocurators to test the utility and usability of tools. Six text mining systems presenting diverse biocuration tasks participated in a formal evaluation, and appropriate biocurators were recruited for testing. The performance results from this evaluation indicate that some of the systems were able to improve efficiency of curation by speeding up the curation task significantly (∼1.7- to 2.5-fold) over manual curation. In addition, some of the systems were able to improve annotation accuracy when compared with the performance on the manually curated set. In terms of inter-annotator agreement, the factors that contributed to significant differences for some of the systems included the expertise of the biocurator on the given curation task, the inherent difficulty of the curation and attention to annotation guidelines. After the task, annotators were asked to complete a survey to help identify strengths and weaknesses of the various systems. The analysis of this survey highlights how important task completion is to the biocurators’ overall experience of a system, regardless of the system’s high score on design, learnability and usability. In addition, strategies to refine the annotation guidelines and systems documentation, to adapt the tools to the needs and query types the end user might have and to evaluate performance in terms of efficiency, user interface, result export and traditional evaluation metrics have been analyzed during this task. This analysis will help to plan for a more intense study in BioCreative IV.

Integrating text mining into the MGI biocuration workflow.

A major challenge for functional and comparative genomics resource development is the extraction of data from the biomedical literature. Although text mining for biological data is an active research field, few applications have been integrated into production literature curation systems such as those of the model organism databases (MODs). Not only are most available biological natural language (bioNLP) and information retrieval and extraction solutions difficult to adapt to existing MOD curation workflows, but many also have high error rates or are unable to process documents available in those formats preferred by scientific journals. In September 2008, Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI) at The Jackson Laboratory initiated a search for dictionary-based text mining tools that we could integrate into our biocuration workflow. MGI has rigorous document triage and annotation procedures designed to identify appropriate articles about mouse genetics and genome biology. We currently screen ∼1000 journal articles a month for Gene Ontology terms, gene mapping, gene expression, phenotype data and other key biological information. Although we do not foresee that curation tasks will ever be fully automated, we are eager to implement named entity recognition (NER) tools for gene tagging that can help streamline our curation workflow and simplify gene indexing tasks within the MGI system. Gene indexing is an MGI-specific curation function that involves identifying which mouse genes are being studied in an article, then associating the appropriate gene symbols with the article reference number in the MGI database. Here, we discuss our search process, performance metrics and success criteria, and how we identified a short list of potential text mining tools for further evaluation. We provide an overview of our pilot projects with NCBOs Open Biomedical Annotator and Fraunhofer SCAIs ProMiner. In doing so, we prove the potential for the further incorporation of semi-automated processes into the curation of the biomedical literature.

Protein Ontology: a controlled structured network of protein entities

The Protein Ontology (PRO; http://proconsortium.org) formally defines protein entities and explicitly represents their major forms and interrelations. Protein entities represented in PRO corresponding to single amino acid chains are categorized by level of specificity into family, gene, sequence and modification metaclasses, and there is a separate metaclass for protein complexes. All metaclasses also have organism-specific derivatives. PRO complements established sequence databases such as UniProtKB, and interoperates with other biomedical and biological ontologies such as the Gene Ontology (GO). PRO relates to UniProtKB in that PRO’s organism-specific classes of proteins encoded by a specific gene correspond to entities documented in UniProtKB entries. PRO relates to the GO in that PRO’s representations of organism-specific protein complexes are subclasses of the organism-agnostic protein complex terms in the GO Cellular Component Ontology. The past few years have seen growth and changes to the PRO, as well as new points of access to the data and new applications of PRO in immunology and proteomics. Here we describe some of these developments.

Dovetailing biology and chemistry: integrating the Gene Ontology with the ChEBI chemical ontology

BackgroundThe Gene Ontology (GO) facilitates the description of the action of gene products in a biological context. Many GO terms refer to chemical entities that participate in biological processes. To facilitate accurate and consistent systems-wide biological representation, it is necessary to integrate the chemical view of these entities with the biological view of GO functions and processes. We describe a collaborative effort between the GO and the Chemical Entities of Biological Interest (ChEBI) ontology developers to ensure that the representation of chemicals in the GO is both internally consistent and in alignment with the chemical expertise captured in ChEBI.ResultsWe have examined and integrated the ChEBI structural hierarchy into the GO resource through computationally-assisted manual curation of both GO and ChEBI. Our work has resulted in the creation of computable definitions of GO terms that contain fully defined semantic relationships to corresponding chemical terms in ChEBI.ConclusionsThe set of logical definitions using both the GO and ChEBI has already been used to automate aspects of GO development and has the potential to allow the integration of data across the domains of biology and chemistry. These logical definitions are available as an extended version of the ontology from http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/go/extensions/go-plus.owl.

The Gene Ontology (GO) Cellular Component Ontology: integration with SAO (Subcellular Anatomy Ontology) and other recent developments

BackgroundThe Gene Ontology (GO) (http://www.geneontology.org/) contains a set of terms for describing the activity and actions of gene products across all kingdoms of life. Each of these activities is executed in a location within a cell or in the vicinity of a cell. In order to capture this context, the GO includes a sub-ontology called the Cellular Component (CC) ontology (GO-CCO). The primary use of this ontology is for GO annotation, but it has also been used for phenotype annotation, and for the annotation of images. Another ontology with similar scope to the GO-CCO is the Subcellular Anatomy Ontology (SAO), part of the Neuroscience Information Framework Standard (NIFSTD) suite of ontologies. The SAO also covers cell components, but in the domain of neuroscience.DescriptionRecently, the GO-CCO was enriched in content and links to the Biological Process and Molecular Function branches of GO as well as to other ontologies. This was achieved in several ways. We carried out an amalgamation of SAO terms with GO-CCO ones; as a result, nearly 100 new neuroscience-related terms were added to the GO. The GO-CCO also contains relationships to GO Biological Process and Molecular Function terms, as well as connecting to external ontologies such as the Cell Ontology (CL). Terms representing protein complexes in the Protein Ontology (PRO) reference GO-CCO terms for their species-generic counterparts. GO-CCO terms can also be used to search a variety of databases.ConclusionsIn this publication we provide an overview of the GO-CCO, its overall design, and some recent extensions that make use of additional spatial information. One of the most recent developments of the GO-CCO was the merging in of the SAO, resulting in a single unified ontology designed to serve the needs of GO annotators as well as the specific needs of the neuroscience community.

A MOD(ern) perspective on literature curation

Curation of biological data is a multi-faceted task whose goal is to create a structured, comprehensive, integrated, and accurate resource of current biological knowledge. These structured data facilitate the work of the scientific community by providing knowledge about genes or genomes and by generating validated connections between the data that yield new information and stimulate new research approaches. For the model organism databases (MODs), an important source of data is research publications. Every published paper containing experimental information about a particular model organism is a candidate for curation. All such papers are examined carefully by curators for relevant information. Here, four curators from different MODs describe the literature curation process and highlight approaches taken by the four MODs to address: (1) the decision process by which papers are selected, and (2) the identification and prioritization of the data contained in the paper. We will highlight some of the challenges that MOD biocurators face, and point to ways in which researchers and publishers can support the work of biocurators and the value of such support.

DFLAT: functional annotation for human development

BackgroundRecent increases in genomic studies of the developing human fetus and neonate have led to a need for widespread characterization of the functional roles of genes at different developmental stages. The Gene Ontology (GO), a valuable and widely-used resource for characterizing gene function, offers perhaps the most suitable functional annotation system for this purpose. However, due in part to the difficulty of studying molecular genetic effects in humans, even the current collection of comprehensive GO annotations for human genes and gene products often lacks adequate developmental context for scientists wishing to study gene function in the human fetus.DescriptionThe Developmental FunctionaL Annotation at Tufts (DFLAT) project aims to improve the quality of analyses of fetal gene expression and regulation by curating human fetal gene functions using both manual and semi-automated GO procedures. Eligible annotations are then contributed to the GO database and included in GO releases of human data. DFLAT has produced a considerable body of functional annotation that we demonstrate provides valuable information about developmental genomics. A collection of gene sets (genes implicated in the same function or biological process), made by combining existing GO annotations with the 13,344 new DFLAT annotations, is available for use in novel analyses. Gene set analyses of expression in several data sets, including amniotic fluid RNA from fetuses with trisomies 21 and 18, umbilical cord blood, and blood from newborns with bronchopulmonary dysplasia, were conducted both with and without the DFLAT annotation.ConclusionsFunctional analysis of expression data using the DFLAT annotation increases the number of implicated gene sets, reflecting the DFLAT’s improved representation of current knowledge. Blinded literature review supports the validity of newly significant findings obtained with the DFLAT annotations. Newly implicated significant gene sets also suggest specific hypotheses for future research. Overall, the DFLAT project contributes new functional annotation and gene sets likely to enhance our ability to interpret genomic studies of human fetal and neonatal development.

Manual Gene Ontology annotation workflow at the Mouse Genome Informatics Database

The Mouse Genome Database, the Gene Expression Database and the Mouse Tumor Biology database are integrated components of the Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI) resource (http://www.informatics.jax.org). The MGI system presents both a consensus view and an experimental view of the knowledge concerning the genetics and genomics of the laboratory mouse. From genotype to phenotype, this information resource integrates information about genes, sequences, maps, expression analyses, alleles, strains and mutant phenotypes. Comparative mammalian data are also presented particularly in regards to the use of the mouse as a model for the investigation of molecular and genetic components of human diseases. These data are collected from literature curation as well as downloads of large datasets (SwissProt, LocusLink, etc.). MGI is one of the founding members of the Gene Ontology (GO) and uses the GO for functional annotation of genes. Here, we discuss the workflow associated with manual GO annotation at MGI, from literature collection to display of the annotations. Peer-reviewed literature is collected mostly from a set of journals available electronically. Selected articles are entered into a master bibliography and indexed to one of eight areas of interest such as ‘GO’ or ‘homology’ or ‘phenotype’. Each article is then either indexed to a gene already contained in the database or funneled through a separate nomenclature database to add genes. The master bibliography and associated indexing provide information for various curator-reports such as ‘papers selected for GO that refer to genes with NO GO annotation’. Once indexed, curators who have expertise in appropriate disciplines enter pertinent information. MGI makes use of several controlled vocabularies that ensure uniform data encoding, enable robust analysis and support the construction of complex queries. These vocabularies range from pick-lists to structured vocabularies such as the GO. All data associations are supported with statements of evidence as well as access to source publications.