logo

SCIENCE CHINA Information Sciences, Volume 59, Issue 7: 070108(2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-016-5581-1

GOAL: the comprehensive gene \\ontology analysis layer

More info
  • ReceivedApr 5, 2016
  • AcceptedApr 30, 2016
  • PublishedJun 13, 2016

Abstract

Homogeneity or heterogeneity of cells is the most fundamental and important features of analyzing biological associations of genes and gene products. Recent bioinformatics technology requires an automated high-throughput analysis application that can handle massively produced data from next generation sequences and dramatically increased size of public proteomic/genomic databases. Although Gene ontology (GO) database has been newly spotlighted on its wide coverage of machine-readable terminologies, its complex DB schema and vast amount of applications utilizing GO without deep considerations of GO term relations dilute the actual power of GO-based analysis and resulted in misleading/under estimated outcomes. Meanwhile, our recent studies showed that BSM score, a new way of measuring functional similarity, clearly outperformed existing conventional methods. However, implementing BSM score that requires integrating multiple databases and calculating scoring matrix is not trivial and even difficult for bioinformatics experts; therefore, a web-based graphical user interface (GUI) tool, Gene Ontology Analysis Layer (GOAL: \url{http://www.ittc.ku.edu/chenlab/goal}) is introduced to provide user-friendly GO application powered by state of art functional similarity metric, BSM score.


Funded by

National Science Foundation(Award OIA-1028098)


Acknowledgment

Acknowledgments

Chen X was supported by National Science Foundation (Award OIA-1028098).


References

[1] Patel A P, Tirosh I, Trombetta J J, et al. Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science, 2014, 344: 1396-1401 CrossRef Google Scholar

[2] Ploper D, Taelman V F, Robert L, et al. MITF drives endolysosomal biogenesis and potentiates Wnt signaling in melanoma cells. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA, 2015. 112: E420--E429. Google Scholar

[3] Ashburner M, Ball C A, Blake J A, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet, 2000, 25: 25-29 CrossRef Google Scholar

[4] Salzman J, Chen R E, Olsen M N, et al. Cell-type specific features of circular RNA expression. PLoS Genet, 2013, 9: e1003777-29 CrossRef Google Scholar

[5] Caffrey C R, Rohwer A, Oellien F, et al. A comparative chemogenomics strategy to predict potential drug targets in the metazoan pathogen, Schistosoma mansoni. PLoS ONE, 2009, 4: e4413-29 CrossRef Google Scholar

[6] Campillos M, Kuhn M, Gavin A C, et al. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science, 2008, 321: 263-266 CrossRef Google Scholar

[7] Crowther G J, Shanmugam D, Carmona S J, et al. Identification of attractive drug targets in neglected-disease pathogens using an in silico approach. PLoS Negl Trop Dis, 2010, 4: e804-266 CrossRef Google Scholar

[8] Smith C. Drug target identification: a question of biology. Nature, 2004, 428: 225-231 Google Scholar

[9] Takenaka T. Classical vs reverse pharmacology in drug discovery. BJU Int, 2001, 88, Suppl 2: 7--10; discussion 49--50. Google Scholar

[10] Osadchy M, Kolodny R. Maps of protein structure space reveal a fundamental relationship between protein structure and function. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA, 2011, 108: 12301-12306 CrossRef Google Scholar

[11] Yildirim M A, Goh K I, Cusick M E, et al. Drug-target network. Nat Biotechnol, 2007, 25: 1119-1126 CrossRef Google Scholar

[12] Devos D, Valencia A. Intrinsic errors in genome annotation. Trends Genet, 2001, 17: 429-431 CrossRef Google Scholar

[13] Petrey D, Fischer M, Honig B. Structural relationships among proteins with different global topologies and their implications for function annotation strategies. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA, 2009, 106: 17377-17382 CrossRef Google Scholar

[14] Yu H Y, Luscombe N M, Lu H X, et al. Annotation transfer between genomes: protein-protein interologs and protein-DNA regulogs. Genom Res, 2004, 14: 1107-1118 CrossRef Google Scholar

[15] Petrey D, Honig B. Is protein classification necessary? Toward alternative approaches to function annotation. Curr Opin Struct Biol, 2009, 19: 363-368 CrossRef Google Scholar

[16] Jeong J C, Chen X-W. Evaluating topology-based metrics for GO term similarity measures. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine, Shanghai, 2013. 43--48. Google Scholar

[17] Gentleman R. Visualizing and distances using GO. 2010. \url{http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/vignettes/GOstats/inst/doc/GOvis.pdf}. Google Scholar

[18] Jiang J J, Conrath D W. Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. In: Proceedings of International Conference Research on Computational Linguistics (ROCLING X), Taipei, 1997. Google Scholar

[19] Resnik P. Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1995. 448--453. Google Scholar

[20] Schlicker A, Domingues F S, Rahnenführer J, et al. A new measure for functional similarity of gene products based on Gene Ontology. BMC Bioinform, 2006, 7: 302-368 CrossRef Google Scholar

[21] Ye P, Peyser B D, Pan X, et al. Gene function prediction from congruent synthetic lethal interactions in yeast. Mol Syst Biol, 2005, 1: 2005-368 Google Scholar

[22] Lerman G, Shakhnovich B E. Defining functional distance using manifold embeddings of gene ontology annotations. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA, 2007, 104: 11334-11339 CrossRef Google Scholar

[23] Lin D. An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Machine Learning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1998. 296--304. Google Scholar

[24] Shannon C E. The mathematical theory of communication. 1963. MD Comput, 1997, 14: 306-317 Google Scholar

[25] Jeong J C, Chen X W. A new semantic functional similarity over gene ontology. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform, 2014, 12: 322-334 Google Scholar

[26] Chen X W, Jeong J C, Dermyer P. KUPS: constructing datasets of interacting and non-interacting protein pairs with associated attributions. Nucl Acids Res, 2011, 39: 750-754 CrossRef Google Scholar

[27] Andreeva A, Howorth D, Chandonia J M, et al. Data growth and its impact on the SCOP database: new developments. Nucl Acids Res, 2008, 36: D419-D425 Google Scholar

[28] Orengo C A, Michie A D, Jones S, et al. CATH---a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure, 1997, 5: 1093-1108 CrossRef Google Scholar

[29] Consortium T U. The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) in 2010. Nucl Acids Res, 2010, 38: D142-D148 CrossRef Google Scholar

[30] Lord P W, Stevens R D, Brass A, et al. Investigating semantic similarity measures across the gene ontology: the relationship between sequence and annotation. Bioinformatics, 2003, 19: 1275-1283 CrossRef Google Scholar

[31] Schlicker A, Albrecht M. FunSimMat: a comprehensive functional similarity database. Nucl Acids Res, 2008, 36: D434-D439 Google Scholar

[32] Pesquita C, Faria D, Bastos H, et al. Metrics for GO based protein semantic similarity: a systematic evaluation. BMC Bioinform, 2008, 9, Suppl 5: S4-D439 Google Scholar

[33] Wang J Z, Du Z, Payattakool R, et al. A new method to measure the semantic similarity of GO terms. Bioinformatics, 2007, 23: 1274-1281 CrossRef Google Scholar

[34] Hamosh A, Scott A F, Amberger J S, et al. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), a knowledgebase of human genes and genetic disorders. Nucl Acids Res, 2005, 33: D514-D517 Google Scholar

[35] Schlicker A, Lengauer T, Albrecht M. Improving disease gene prioritization using the semantic similarity of Gene Ontology terms. Bioinformatics, 2010, 26: i561-i567 CrossRef Google Scholar

Copyright 2019 Science China Press Co., Ltd. 《中国科学》杂志社有限责任公司 版权所有

京ICP备18024590号-1