Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25774204›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2015

An ontology approach to comparative phenomics in plants.

Anika Oellrich, Ramona L Walls, Ethalinda Ks Cannon, Steven B Cannon, Laurel Cooper, Jack Gardiner, Georgios V Gkoutos, Lisa Harper, Mingze He, Robert Hoehndorf and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. MENTOR: Multiplex Embedding of Networks for Team-Based Omics Research.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Anika Oellrich *Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1SA UK.
Ramona L Walls *iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona, 1657 E. Helen St., Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA.
Ethalinda Ks CannonDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering Iowa State University, 1018 Crop Informatics Lab, Ames, Iowa 50011 USA.
Steven B CannonUSDA-ARS Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Research Unit, Iowa State University, Crop Genome Informatics Lab, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 USA.
Laurel CooperDepartment of Botany and Plant Pathology, 2082 Cordley Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA.
Jack GardinerDepartment of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, Roy J Carver Co-Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 USA.
Georgios V GkoutosDepartment of Computer Science, Aberystwyth University, Llandinam Building, Aberystwyth, SY23 3DB UK.
Lisa HarperUSDA-ARS Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Research Unit, Iowa State University, Crop Genome Informatics Lab, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 USA.
Mingze HeDepartment of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, Roy J Carver Co-Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 USA.
Robert HoehndorfComputer, Electrical and Mathematical Sciences & Engineering Division and Computational Bioscience Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, 4700 King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 2882, Thuwal, 23955-6900 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Pankaj JaiswalDepartment of Botany and Plant Pathology, 2082 Cordley Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA.
Scott R KalbererUSDA-ARS Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Research Unit, Iowa State University, Crop Genome Informatics Lab, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 USA.
John P LloydDepartment of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, 220 Trowbridge Rd, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.
David MeinkeDepartment of Botany, Oklahoma State University, 301 Physical Sciences, Stillwater, OK 74078 USA.
Naama MendaBoyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, 533 Tower Road, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA.
Laura MooreDepartment of Botany and Plant Pathology, 2082 Cordley Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA.
Rex T NelsonUSDA-ARS Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Research Unit, Iowa State University, Crop Genome Informatics Lab, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 USA.
Anuradha PujarBoyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, 533 Tower Road, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA.
Carolyn J LawrenceDepartment of Agronomy, Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010 USA.
Eva HualaPhoenix Bioinformatics, 643 Bair Island Rd Suite 403, Redwood City, CA 94063 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlant phenotype datasets include many different types of data, formats, and terms from specialized vocabularies. Because these datasets were designed for different audiences, they frequently contain language and details tailored to investigators with different research objectives and backgrounds. Although phenotype comparisons across datasets have long been possible on a small scale, comprehensive queries and analyses that span a broad set of reference species, research disciplines, and knowledge domains continue to be severely limited by the absence of a common semantic framework.

resultsWe developed a workflow to curate and standardize existing phenotype datasets for six plant species, encompassing both model species and crop plants with established genetic resources. Our effort focused on mutant phenotypes associated with genes of known sequence in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. (Arabidopsis), Zea mays L. subsp. mays (maize), Medicago truncatula Gaertn. (barrel medic or Medicago), Oryza sativa L. (rice), Glycine max (L.) Merr. (soybean), and Solanum lycopersicum L. (tomato). We applied the same ontologies, annotation standards, formats, and best practices across all six species, thereby ensuring that the shared dataset could be used for cross-species querying and semantic similarity analyses. Curated phenotypes were first converted into a common format using taxonomically broad ontologies such as the Plant Ontology, Gene Ontology, and Phenotype and Trait Ontology. We then compared ontology-based phenotypic descriptions with an existing classification system for plant phenotypes and evaluated our semantic similarity dataset for its ability to enhance predictions of gene families, protein functions, and shared metabolic pathways that underlie informative plant phenotypes.

conclusionsThe use of ontologies, annotation standards, shared formats, and best practices for cross-taxon phenotype data analyses represents a novel approach to plant phenomics that enhances the utility of model genetic organisms and can be readily applied to species with fewer genetic resources and less well-characterized genomes. In addition, these tools should enhance future efforts to explore the relationships among phenotypic similarity, gene function, and sequence similarity in plants, and to make genotype-to-phenotype predictions relevant to plant biology, crop improvement, and potentially even human health.

Identifiers

PMID25774204
PMCPMC4359497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.