How the gene ontology evolves

BackgroundMaintaining a bio-ontology in the long term requires improving and updating its contents so that it adequately captures what is known about biological phenomena. This paper illustrates how these processes are carried out, by studying the ways in which curators at the Gene Ontology have hitherto incorporated new knowledge into their resource.ResultsFive types of circumstances are singled out as warranting changes in the ontology: (1) the emergence of anomalies within GO; (2) the extension of the scope of GO; (3) divergence in how terminology is used across user communities; (4) new discoveries that change the meaning of the terms used and their relations to each other; and (5) the extension of the range of relations used to link entities or processes described by GO terms.ConclusionThis study illustrates the difficulties involved in applying general standards to the development of a specific ontology. Ontology curation aims to produce a faithful representation of knowledge domains as they keep developing, which requires the translation of general guidelines into specific representations of reality and an understanding of how scientific knowledge is produced and constantly updated. In this context, it is important that trained curators with technical expertise in the scientific field(s) in question are involved in supervising ontology shifts and identifying inaccuracies.

[1]  Yu-Ling Shih,et al.  The Bacterial Cytoskeleton , 2006, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews.

[2]  Jan Löwe,et al.  Dynamic filaments of the bacterial cytoskeleton. , 2006, Annual review of biochemistry.

[3]  David S. Roos,et al.  A novel polymer of tubulin forms the conoid of Toxoplasma gondii , 2002, The Journal of cell biology.

[4]  Suzanna E Lewis,et al.  Gene Ontology: looking backwards and forwards , 2004, Genome Biology.

[5]  Alexander D. Diehl,et al.  BIOINFORMATICS APPLICATIONS NOTE doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm029 Databases and ontologies Ontology development for biological systems: immunology , 2006 .

[6]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  Biomedical ontologies: a functional perspective , 2007, Briefings Bioinform..

[7]  M. Ashburner,et al.  The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[8]  BMC Bioinformatics , 2005 .

[9]  A. Rector,et al.  Relations in biomedical ontologies , 2005, Genome Biology.

[10]  Judith A. Blake,et al.  Gene Ontology annotations: what they mean and where they come from , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[11]  D. C. DUMONDE,et al.  Immunological Reviews , 1964, Nature.

[12]  David S Roos,et al.  Cytoskeletal Components of an Invasion Machine—The Apical Complex of Toxoplasma gondii , 2006, PLoS pathogens.

[13]  Sabina Leonelli,et al.  Documenting the emergence of bio-ontologies: or, why researching bioinformatics requires HPSSB. , 2010, History and philosophy of the life sciences.

[14]  Avigdor Gal Ontology Engineering , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[15]  C. Jacobs-Wagner,et al.  The Bacterial Cytoskeleton An Intermediate Filament-Like Function in Cell Shape , 2003, Cell.

[16]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[17]  B Marshall,et al.  Gene Ontology Consortium: The Gene Ontology (GO) database and informatics resource , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[18]  Giorgio Valle,et al.  The Gene Ontology in 2010: extensions and refinements , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[19]  L. Piater,et al.  Innate immunity in plants and animals: striking similarities and obvious differences , 2004, Immunological reviews.