Investigating the importance of anatomical homology for cross-species phenotype comparisons using semantic similarity.
Prashanti MandaiD, Christopher Mungall, James Balhoff, Hilmar Lapp, Todd VisioniD
Abstract
There is growing use of ontologies for the measurement of cross-species phenotype similarity. Such similarity measurements contribute to diverse applications, such as identifying genetic models for human diseases, transferring knowledge among model organisms, and studying the genetic basis of evolutionary innovations. Two organismal features, whether genes, anatomical parts, or any other inherited feature, are considered to be homologous when they are evolutionarily derived from a single feature in a common ancestor. A classic example is the homology between the paired fins of fishes and vertebrate limbs. Anatomical ontologies that model the structural relations among parts may fail to include some known anatomical homologies unless they are deliberately added as separate axioms. The consequences of neglecting known homologies for applications that rely on such ontologies has not been well studied. Here, we examine how semantic similarity is affected when external homology knowledge is included. We measure phenotypic similarity between orthologous and non-orthologous gene pairs between humans and either mouse or zebrafish, and compare the inclusion of real with faux homology axioms. Semantic similarity was preferentially increased for orthologs when using real homology axioms, but only in the more divergent of the two species comparisons (human to zebrafish, not human to mouse), and the relative increase was less than 1% to non-orthologs. By contrast, inclusion of both real and faux random homology axioms preferentially increased similarities between genes that were initially more dissimilar in the other comparisons. Biologically meaningful increases in semantic similarity were seen for a select subset of gene pairs. Overall, the effect of including homology axioms on cross-species semantic similarity was modest at the levels of divergence examined here, but our results hint that it may be greater for more distant species comparisons.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papersReproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- A logical model of homology for comparative biology
P. Mabee, J. Balhoff, … T. Vision·bioRxiv·Mar 26, 2019
- "Opposite-of"-information improves similarity calculations in phenotype ontologies
Sebastian Köhler, Peter N. Robinson, Chris Mungall·bioRxiv·Jul 27, 2017
- Assessing Bayesian Phylogenetic Information Content of Morphological Data Using Knowledge from Anatomy Ontologies
D. Sasso Porto, W. Dahdul, … J. Uyeda·Systematic BiologyPeer-reviewed·Oct 12, 2022
- An analysis and comparison of the statistical sensitivity of semantic similarity metrics
Prashanti Manda, Todd Vision·bioRxiv·May 22, 2018
- The role of homology and orthology in the phylogenomic analysis of metazoan gene content
W. Pett, M. Adamski, … G. Woerheide·bioRxiv·Jun 8, 2018
- Ontology-based similarity calculations with an improved annotation model
Sebastian Köhler·DatabasePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2018