GOAL: the comprehensive gene ontology analysis layer

Research Paper Special Focus on Biomolecular Network Analysis and Application
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 53 Downloads

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: 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.

Keywords

gene ontology molecular function functional similarity network-based analysis BSM score 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Patel A P, Tirosh I, Trombetta J J, et al. Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science, 2014, 344: 1396–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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–E429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashburner M, Ball C A, Blake J A, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet, 2000, 25: 25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salzman J, Chen R E, Olsen M N, et al. Cell-type specific features of circular RNA expression. PLoS Genet, 2013, 9: e1003777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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: e4413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campillos M, Kuhn M, Gavin A C, et al. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science, 2008, 321: 263–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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: e804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith C. Drug target identification: a question of biology. Nature, 2004, 428: 225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Takenaka T. Classical vs reverse pharmacology in drug discovery. BJU Int, 2001, 88, Suppl 2: 7–10; discussion 49–50Google Scholar
  10. 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: 12301–12306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yildirim M A, Goh K I, Cusick M E, et al. Drug-target network. Nat Biotechnol, 2007, 25: 1119–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Devos D, Valencia A. Intrinsic errors in genome annotation. Trends Genet, 2001, 17: 429–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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: 17377–17382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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: 1107–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Petrey D, Honig B. Is protein classification necessary? Toward alternative approaches to function annotation. Curr Opin Struct Biol, 2009, 19: 363–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 43–48Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gentleman R. Visualizing and distances using GO. 2010. http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/ vignettes/GOstats/inst/doc/GOvis.pdfGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, 1997Google Scholar
  19. 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. 448–453Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schlicker A, Domingues F S, Rahnenfhrer J, et al. A new measure for functional similarity of gene products based on Gene Ontology. BMC Bioinform, 2006, 7: 302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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: 2005–0026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lerman G, Shakhnovich B E. Defining functional distance using manifold embeddings of gene ontology annotations. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA, 2007, 104: 11334–11339MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 296–304Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shannon C E. The mathematical theory of communication. 1963. MD Comput, 1997, 14: 306–317Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jeong J C, Chen X W. A new semantic functional similarity over gene ontology. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform, 2014, 12: 322–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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: 750–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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–D425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Orengo C A, Michie A D, Jones S, et al. CATH—a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure, 1997, 5: 1093–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Consortium T U. The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) in 2010. Nucl Acids Res, 2010, 38: D142–D148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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: 1275–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schlicker A, Albrecht M. FunSimMat: a comprehensive functional similarity database. Nucl Acids Res, 2008, 36: D434–D439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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: S4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang J Z, Du Z, Payattakool R, et al. A new method to measure the semantic similarity of GO terms. Bioinformatics, 2007, 23: 1274–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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–D517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schlicker A, Lengauer T, Albrecht M. Improving disease gene prioritization using the semantic similarity of Gene Ontology terms. Bioinformatics, 2010, 26: i561–i567CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical SchoolBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Bioinformatics and Computational Life Sciences LaboratoryUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  4. 4.Cerner CorporationKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations