4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Beyond the data deluge: Data integration and bio-ontologies

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 314-320

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2006.01.003

关键词

gene ontology; mouse genome informatics; data integration; biomedical ontologies; bio-ontologies

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA89713] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHGRI NIH HHS [HG02273, HG00330] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [HD33745] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biomedical research is increasingly a data-driven science. New technologies support the generation of genome-scale data sets of sequences, sequence variants, transcripts, and proteins; genetic elements underpinning understanding of biomedicine and disease. Information systems designed to manage these data, and the functional insights (biological knowledge) that come from the analysis of these data, are critical to mining large, heterogeneous data sets for new biologically relevant patterns, to generating hypotheses for experimental validation, and ultimately, to building models of how biological systems work. Bio-ontologies have an essential role in supporting two key approaches to effective interpretation of genome-scale data sets: data integration and comparative genomics. To date, bio-ontologies such as the Gene Ontology have been used primarily in community genome databases as structured controlled terminologies and as data aggregators. In this paper we use the Gene Ontology (GO) and the Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI) database as use cases to illustrate the impact of bio-ontologies on data integration and for comparative genomics. Despite the profound impact ontologies are having on the digital categorization of biological knowledge, new biomedical research and the expanding and changing nature of biological information have limited the development of bio-ontologies to support dynamic reasoning for knowledge discovery. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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