4.7 Article

Identification of OBO nonalignments and its implications for OBO enrichment

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 1448-1455

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn194

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [5R01 DE15191-04, R01 DE015191] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NLM NIH HHS [R01 LM008111, 5R01LM008111-2] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: Existing projects that focus on the semiautomatic addition of links between existing terms in the Open Biomedical Ontologies can take advantage of reasoners that can make new inferences between terms that are based on the added formal definitions and that reflect nonalignments between the linked terms. However, these projects require that these definitions be necessary and sufficient, a strong requirement that often does not hold. If such definitions cannot be added, the reasoners cannot point to the nonalignments through the suggestion of new inferences. Results: We describe a methodology by which we have identified over 1900 instances of nonredundant nonalignments between terms from the Gene Ontology (GO) biological process (BP), cellular component (CC) and molecular function (MF) ontologies, Chemical Entities of Biological Interest (ChEBI) and the Cell Type Ontology (CL). Many of the 39.8% of these nonalignments whose object terms are more atomic than the subject terms are not currently examined in other ontology-enrichment projects due to the fact that the necessary and sufficient conditions required for the inferences are not currently examined. Analysis of the ratios of nonalignments to assertions from which the nonalignments were identified suggests that BP-MF, BP-BP, BP-CL and CC-CC terms are relatively well-aligned, while ChEBI-MF, BP-ChEBI and CC-MF terms are relatively not aligned well. We propose four ways to resolve an identified nonalignment and recommend an analogous implementation of our methodology in ontology-enrichment tools to identify types of nonalignments that are currently not detected.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据