4.1 Article

Expanding the mammalian phenotype ontology to support automated exchange of high throughput mouse phenotyping data generated by large-scale mouse knockout screens

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL SEMANTICS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13326-015-0009-1

关键词

Phenotype; Ontology; Mouse; Data integration; Database

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA034196] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHGRI NIH HHS [U41 HG000330] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA034196] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A vast array of data is about to emerge from the large scale high-throughput mouse knockout phenotyping projects worldwide. It is critical that this information is captured in a standardized manner, made accessible, and is fully integrated with other phenotype data sets for comprehensive querying and analysis across all phenotype data types. The volume of data generated by the high-throughput phenotyping screens is expected to grow exponentially, thus, automated methods and standards to exchange phenotype data are required. Results: The IMPC (International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium) is using the Mammalian Phenotype (MP) ontology in the automated annotation of phenodeviant data from high throughput phenotyping screens. 287 new term additions with additional hierarchy revisions were made in multiple branches of the MP ontology to accurately describe the results generated by these high throughput screens. Conclusions: Because these large scale phenotyping data sets will be reported using the MP as the common data standard for annotation and data exchange, automated importation of these data to MGI (Mouse Genome Informatics) and other resources is possible without curatorial effort. Maximum biomedical value of these mutant mice will come from integrating primary high-throughput phenotyping data with secondary, comprehensive phenotypic analyses combined with published phenotype details on these and related mutants at MGI and other resources.

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

4.1
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