The Drosophila phenotype ontology

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.

[1]  Michel Dumontier,et al.  Interoperability between Biomedical Ontologies through Relation Expansion, Upper-Level Ontologies and Automatic Reasoning , 2011, PloS one.

[2]  James F. Allen.  Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals , 1983, CACM.

[3]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  The OBO to OWL Mapping, GO to OWL 1.1! , 2007, OWLED.

[4]  F. A. Hitchcock.  Department of Physiology , 1969 .

[5]  Eain C. J. Green,et al.  Ontologies for the Description of Mouse Phenotypes , 2004, Comparative and functional genomics.

[6]  Paul N. Schofield,et al.  Improving ontologies by automatic reasoning and evaluation of logical definitions , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[7]  Kara Dolinski,et al.  Saccharomyces Genome Database provides mutant phenotype data , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[8]  John M. Hancock,et al.  Entity/quality-based logical definitions for the human skeletal phenome using PATO , 2009, 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[9]  Daniel A. Levitis,et al.  Behavioural biologists do not agree on what constitutes behaviour , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  Emily Dimmer,et al.  Formalization of taxon-based constraints to detect inconsistencies in annotation and ontology development , 2010, BMC Bioinformatics.

[11]  Markus Krötzsch,et al.  ELK Reasoner: Architecture and Evaluation , 2012, ORE.

[12]  Robert L. Scot Drysdale,et al.  Phenotypic Data in FlyBase , 2001, Briefings Bioinform..

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

[14]  Tanya Z. Berardini,et al.  Cross-product extensions of the Gene Ontology , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[15]  Alan L. Rector,et al.  Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including OWL , 2003, K-CAP '03.

[16]  Nicholas Burton,et al.  The Virtual Fly Brain browser and query interface , 2012, Bioinform..

[17]  Nigel W. Hardy,et al.  Systematic Analysis of Experimental Phenotype Data Reveals Gene Functions , 2013, PloS one.

[18]  Robert Hoehndorf,et al.  Ontology-based cross-species integration and analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae phenotypes , 2012, J. Biomed. Semant..

[19]  Chris Mungall,et al.  A Chado case study: an ontology-based modular schema for representing genome-associated biological information , 2007, ISMB/ECCB.

[20]  Janan T. Eppig,et al.  The Mammalian Phenotype Ontology as a unifying standard for experimental and high-throughput phenotyping data , 2012, Mammalian Genome.

[21]  M. Ashburner,et al.  An ontology for cell types , 2005, Genome Biology.

[22]  Alan Ruttenberg,et al.  A strategy for building neuroanatomy ontologies , 2012, Bioinform..

[23]  John M. Hancock,et al.  Using ontologies to describe mouse phenotypes , 2004, Genome Biology.

[24]  Daniel Schober,et al.  Towards an ontological representation of morbidity and mortality in Description Logics , 2012, J. Biomed. Semant..

[25]  Jürg Bähler,et al.  FYPO: the fission yeast phenotype ontology , 2013, Bioinform..

[26]  Judith A. Blake,et al.  The Mouse Genome Database: Genotypes, Phenotypes, and Models of Human Disease , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[27]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean , 2002, CACM.

[28]  Victor B. Strelets,et al.  FlyBase: anatomical data, images and queries , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[29]  Dietrich Rebholz-Schuhmann,et al.  Improving Disease Gene Prioritization by Comparing the Semantic Similarity of Phenotypes in Mice with Those of Human Diseases , 2012, PloS one.

[30]  David Osumi-Sutherland,et al.  The Drosophila anatomy ontology , 2013, J. Biomed. Semant..

[31]  Paul W. Sternberg,et al.  Worm Phenotype Ontology: Integrating phenotype data within and beyond the C. elegans community , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[32]  S. Mundlos,et al.  The Human Phenotype Ontology , 2010, Clinical genetics.

[33]  Paul N. Schofield,et al.  PhenomeNET: a whole-phenome approach to disease gene discovery , 2011, Nucleic acids research.