Laura Ponting
University of Cambridge
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Laura Ponting.
Nucleic Acids Research | 2017
Simon A. Forbes; David Beare; Harry Boutselakis; Sally Bamford; Nidhi Bindal; John G. Tate; Charlotte G. Cole; Sari Ward; Elisabeth Dawson; Laura Ponting; Raymund Stefancsik; Bhavana Harsha; Chai Yin Kok; Mingming Jia; Harry C. Jubb; Zbyslaw Sondka; Sam Thompson; Tisham De; Peter J. Campbell
COSMIC, the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk) is a high-resolution resource for exploring targets and trends in the genetics of human cancer. Currently the broadest database of mutations in cancer, the information in COSMIC is curated by expert scientists, primarily by scrutinizing large numbers of scientific publications. Over 4 million coding mutations are described in v78 (September 2016), combining genome-wide sequencing results from 28 366 tumours with complete manual curation of 23 489 individual publications focused on 186 key genes and 286 key fusion pairs across all cancers. Molecular profiling of large tumour numbers has also allowed the annotation of more than 13 million non-coding mutations, 18 029 gene fusions, 187 429 genome rearrangements, 1 271 436 abnormal copy number segments, 9 175 462 abnormal expression variants and 7 879 142 differentially methylated CpG dinucleotides. COSMIC now details the genetics of drug resistance, novel somatic gene mutations which allow a tumour to evade therapeutic cancer drugs. Focusing initially on highly characterized drugs and genes, COSMIC v78 contains wide resistance mutation profiles across 20 drugs, detailing the recurrence of 301 unique resistance alleles across 1934 drug-resistant tumours. All information from the COSMIC database is available freely on the COSMIC website.
Nucleic Acids Research | 2014
Susan E. St. Pierre; Laura Ponting; Raymund Stefancsik; Peter McQuilton
FlyBase (http://flybase.org) is the leading website and database of Drosophila genes and genomes. Whether you are using the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster as an experimental system or wish to understand Drosophila biological knowledge in relation to human disease or to other model systems, FlyBase can help you successfully find the information you are looking for. Here, we demonstrate some of our more advanced searching systems and highlight some of our new tools for searching the wealth of data on FlyBase. The first section explores gene function in FlyBase, using our TermLink tool to search with Controlled Vocabulary terms and our new RNA-Seq Search tool to search gene expression. The second section of this article describes a few ways to search genomic data in FlyBase, using our BLAST server and the new implementation of GBrowse 2, as well as our new FeatureMapper tool. Finally, we move on to discuss our most powerful search tool, QueryBuilder, before describing pre-computed cuts of the data and how to query the database programmatically.
Nucleic Acids Research | 2017
L. Sian Gramates; Steven J. Marygold; Gilberto dos Santos; Jose-Maria Urbano; Giulia Antonazzo; Beverley B. Matthews; Alix J. Rey; Christopher J. Tabone; Madeline A. Crosby; David B. Emmert; Kathleen Falls; Joshua L. Goodman; Yanhui Hu; Laura Ponting; Andrew J. Schroeder; Victor B. Strelets; Jim Thurmond; Pinglei Zhou
Since 1992, FlyBase (flybase.org) has been an essential online resource for the Drosophila research community. Concentrating on the most extensively studied species, Drosophila melanogaster, FlyBase includes information on genes (molecular and genetic), transgenic constructs, phenotypes, genetic and physical interactions, and reagents such as stocks and cDNAs. Access to data is provided through a number of tools, reports, and bulk-data downloads. Looking to the future, FlyBase is expanding its focus to serve a broader scientific community. In this update, we describe new features, datasets, reagent collections, and data presentations that address this goal, including enhanced orthology data, Human Disease Model Reports, protein domain search and visualization, concise gene summaries, a portal for external resources, video tutorials and the FlyBase Community Advisory Group.
PeerJ | 2013
Nicole Vasilevsky; Matthew H. Brush; Holly Paddock; Laura Ponting; Shreejoy J. Tripathy; Gregory M. LaRocca; Melissa Haendel
Scientific reproducibility has been at the forefront of many news stories and there exist numerous initiatives to help address this problem. We posit that a contributor is simply a lack of specificity that is required to enable adequate research reproducibility. In particular, the inability to uniquely identify research resources, such as antibodies and model organisms, makes it difficult or impossible to reproduce experiments even where the science is otherwise sound. In order to better understand the magnitude of this problem, we designed an experiment to ascertain the “identifiability” of research resources in the biomedical literature. We evaluated recent journal articles in the fields of Neuroscience, Developmental Biology, Immunology, Cell and Molecular Biology and General Biology, selected randomly based on a diversity of impact factors for the journals, publishers, and experimental method reporting guidelines. We attempted to uniquely identify model organisms (mouse, rat, zebrafish, worm, fly and yeast), antibodies, knockdown reagents (morpholinos or RNAi), constructs, and cell lines. Specific criteria were developed to determine if a resource was uniquely identifiable, and included examining relevant repositories (such as model organism databases, and the Antibody Registry), as well as vendor sites. The results of this experiment show that 54% of resources are not uniquely identifiable in publications, regardless of domain, journal impact factor, or reporting requirements. For example, in many cases the organism strain in which the experiment was performed or antibody that was used could not be identified. Our results show that identifiability is a serious problem for reproducibility. Based on these results, we provide recommendations to authors, reviewers, journal editors, vendors, and publishers. Scientific efficiency and reproducibility depend upon a research-wide improvement of this substantial problem in science today.
Current protocols in human genetics | 2016
Simon A. Forbes; David Beare; Nidhi Bindal; Sally Bamford; Sari Ward; Charlotte G. Cole; Mingming Jia; Chai Yin Kok; Harry Boutselakis; Tisham De; Zbyslaw Sondka; Laura Ponting; Raymund Stefancsik; Bhavana Harsha; John G. Tate; Elisabeth Dawson; Sam Thompson; Harry C. Jubb; Peter J. Campbell
COSMIC (http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk) is an expert‐curated database of somatic mutations in human cancer. Broad and comprehensive in scope, recent releases in 2016 describe over 4 million coding mutations across all human cancer disease types. Mutations are annotated across the entire genome, but expert curation is focused on over 400 key cancer genes. Now encompassing the majority of molecular mutation mechanisms in oncogenetics, COSMIC additionally describes 10 million non‐coding mutations, 1 million copy‐number aberrations, 9 million gene‐expression variants, and almost 8 million differentially methylated CpGs. This information combines a consistent interpretation of the data from the major cancer genome consortia and cancer genome literature with exhaustive hand curation of over 22,000 gene‐specific literature publications. This unit describes the graphical Web site in detail; alternative protocols overview other ways the entire database can be accessed, analyzed, and downloaded.
Journal of Biomedical Semantics | 2013
David Osumi-Sutherland; Steven J. Marygold; Gillian Millburn; Peter McQuilton; Laura Ponting; Raymund Stefancsik; Kathleen Falls; Nicholas H. Brown; Georgios V. Gkoutos
BackgroundPhenotype ontologies are queryable classifications of phenotypes. They provide a widely-used means for annotating phenotypes in a form that is human-readable, programatically accessible and that can be used to group annotations in biologically meaningful ways. Accurate manual annotation requires clear textual definitions for terms. Accurate grouping and fruitful programatic usage require high-quality formal definitions that can be used to automate classification. The Drosophila phenotype ontology (DPO) has been used to annotate over 159,000 phenotypes in FlyBase to date, but until recently lacked textual or formal definitions.ResultsWe have composed textual definitions for all DPO terms and formal definitions for 77% of them. Formal definitions reference terms from a range of widely-used ontologies including the Phenotype and Trait Ontology (PATO), the Gene Ontology (GO) and the Cell Ontology (CL). We also describe a generally applicable system, devised for the DPO, for recording and reasoning about the timing of death in populations. As a result of the new formalisations, 85% of classifications in the DPO are now inferred rather than asserted, with much of this classification leveraging the structure of the GO. This work has significantly improved the accuracy and completeness of classification and made further development of the DPO more sustainable.ConclusionsThe DPO provides a set of well-defined terms for annotating Drosophila phenotypes and for grouping and querying the resulting annotation sets in biologically meaningful ways. Such queries have already resulted in successful function predictions from phenotype annotation. Moreover, such formalisations make extended queries possible, including cross-species queries via the external ontologies used in formal definitions. The DPO is openly available under an open source license in both OBO and OWL formats. There is good potential for it to be used more broadly by the Drosophila community, which may ultimately result in its extension to cover a broader range of phenotypes.
Database | 2014
Juan Miguel Cejuela; Peter McQuilton; Laura Ponting; Steven J. Marygold; Raymund Stefancsik; Gillian Millburn; Burkhard Rost
The breadth and depth of biomedical literature are increasing year upon year. To keep abreast of these increases, FlyBase, a database for Drosophila genomic and genetic information, is constantly exploring new ways to mine the published literature to increase the efficiency and accuracy of manual curation and to automate some aspects, such as triaging and entity extraction. Toward this end, we present the ‘tagtog’ system, a web-based annotation framework that can be used to mark up biological entities (such as genes) and concepts (such as Gene Ontology terms) in full-text articles. tagtog leverages manual user annotation in combination with automatic machine-learned annotation to provide accurate identification of gene symbols and gene names. As part of the BioCreative IV Interactive Annotation Task, FlyBase has used tagtog to identify and extract mentions of Drosophila melanogaster gene symbols and names in full-text biomedical articles from the PLOS stable of journals. We show here the results of three experiments with different sized corpora and assess gene recognition performance and curation speed. We conclude that tagtog-named entity recognition improves with a larger corpus and that tagtog-assisted curation is quicker than manual curation. Database URL: www.tagtog.net, www.flybase.org
Cancer Research | 2017
Zbyslaw Sondka; Sally Bamford; Charlotte G. Cole; Elisabeth Dawson; Laura Ponting; Raymund Stefancsik; Sari Ward; John G. Tate; Peter J. Campbell; Simon A. Forbes
The Cancer Gene Census is an ongoing effort to catalogue genes for which somatic mutations have been causally implicated in cancer. The Census comprises manually curated summaries of the most relevant information for cancer-driving genes and their somatic mutations and brings together the expertise of a dedicated curation team, cancer scientists and the comprehensive resources of the COSMIC database. Current research focuses on characterising the participation of 609 census genes in hallmarks of cancer and identification of additional genes involved in these biological traits primarily via altered expression, CNA or epigenetic changes. New overviews of cancer gene function focused on hallmarks of cancer pull together manually curated information on the function of proteins coded by cancer genes and summarises the data in simple graphical form. It presents a condensed overview of most relevant facts with quick access to the literature source, aiming to provide summary characteristics of a cancer gene, rather than a full monography, to avoid information overload. This functional characterisation enables the creation of lists of genes of interest focused on the particular role they play in the development of cancer, as well as aiming to identify the cellular functions affected by mutations in particular tumours, and help to choose right targets for targeted therapy or synthetic lethality experiments. The Census is available from the COSMIC website for online use or download at: http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/census. Citation Format: Zbyslaw Sondka, Sally Bamford, Charlotte G. Cole, Elisabeth Dawson, Laura Ponting, Raymund Stefancsik, Sari A. Ward, John Tate, Peter J. Campbell, Simon A. Forbes. COSMIC Cancer Gene Census: expert descriptions across genes in oncogenesis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2599. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-2599
Cancer Research | 2018
Zbyslaw Sondka; Sally Bamford; Charlotte G. Cole; Elisabeth Dawson; Laura Ponting; Raymund Stefancsik; Sari Ward; Harry C. Jubb; Sam Thompson; Dave Beare; Nidhi Bindal; Charambulos Boutselakis; Peter Fish; Bhavana Harsha; Chai Yin Kok; Chris Ramshaw; Claire Rye; John G. Tate; Shicai Wang; Peter J. Campbell; Simon A. Forbes
F1000Research | 2017
Laura Ponting; Sally Bamford; Charlotte G. Cole; Sari Ward; Elisabeth Dawson; Raymund Stefancsik; Nidhi Bindal; David Beare; Harry Boutselakis; Bhavana Harsha; Mingming Jia; Harry C. Jubb; Chai Yin Kok; Claire Rye; Zbyslaw Sondka; John G. Tate; Sam Thompson; Shicai Wang; Simon A. Forbes; Peter J. Campbell