More Like this

1. Crowdsourcing biocuration: The Community Assessment of Community Annotation with Ontologies (CACAO)

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009463  

   Ramsey, Jolene ; McIntosh, Brenley ; Renfro, Daniel ; Aleksander, Suzanne A. ; LaBonte, Sandra ; Ross, Curtis ; Zweifel, Adrienne E. ; Liles, Nathan ; Farrar, Shabnam ; Gill, Jason J. ; et al ( October 2021 , PLOS Computational Biology)

   Ouellette, Francis (Ed.)

   Experimental data about gene functions curated from the primary literature have enormous value for research scientists in understanding biology. Using the Gene Ontology (GO), manual curation by experts has provided an important resource for studying gene function, especially within model organisms. Unprecedented expansion of the scientific literature and validation of the predicted proteins have increased both data value and the challenges of keeping pace. Capturing literature-based functional annotations is limited by the ability of biocurators to handle the massive and rapidly growing scientific literature. Within the community-oriented wiki framework for GO annotation called the Gene Ontology Normal Usage Tracking System (GONUTS), we describe an approach to expand biocuration through crowdsourcing with undergraduates. This multiplies the number of high-quality annotations in international databases, enriches our coverage of the literature on normal gene function, and pushes the field in new directions. From an intercollegiate competition judged by experienced biocurators, Community Assessment of Community Annotation with Ontologies (CACAO), we have contributed nearly 5,000 literature-based annotations. Many of those annotations are to organisms not currently well-represented within GO. Over a 10-year history, our community contributors have spurred changes to the ontology not traditionally covered by professional biocurators. The CACAO principle of relying on community members to participate in and shape the future of biocuration in GO is a powerful and scalable model used to promote the scientific enterprise. It also provides undergraduate students with a unique and enriching introduction to critical reading of primary literature and acquisition of marketable skills. 

   more » « less
2. Modifier Ontologies for frequency, certainty, degree, and coverage phenotype modifier

   https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.6.e29232  

   Endara, Lorena ; Thessen, Anne ; Cole, Heather ; Walls, Ramona ; Gkoutos, Georgios ; Cao, Yujie ; Chong, Steven ; Cui, Hong ( November 2018 , Biodiversity Data Journal)

   Background: When phenotypic characters are described in the literature, they may be constrained or clarified with additional information such as the location or degree of expression, these terms are called “modifiers”. With effort underway to convert narrative character descriptions to computable data, ontologies for such modifiers are needed. Such ontologies can also be used to guide term usage in future publications. Spatial and method modifiers are the subjects of ontologies that already have been developed or are under development. In this work, frequency (e.g., rarely, usually), certainty (e.g., probably, definitely), degree (e.g., slightly, extremely), and coverage modifiers (e.g., sparsely, entirely) are collected, reviewed, and used to create two modifier ontologies with different design considerations. The basic goal is to express the sequential relationships within a type of modifiers, for example, usually is more frequent than rarely, in order to allow data annotated with ontology terms to be classified accordingly. Method: Two designs are proposed for the ontology, both using the list pattern: a closed ordered list (i.e., five-bin design) and an open ordered list design. The five-bin design puts the modifier terms into a set of 5 fixed bins with interval object properties, for example, one_level_more/less_frequently_than, where new terms can only be added as synonyms to existing classes. The open list approach starts with 5 bins, but supports the extensibility of the list via ordinal properties, for example, more/less_frequently_than, allowing new terms to be inserted as a new class anywhere in the list. The consequences of the different design decisions are discussed in the paper. CharaParser was used to extract modifiers from plant, ant, and other taxonomic descriptions. After a manual screening, 130 modifier words were selected as the candidate terms for the modifier ontologies. Four curators/experts (three biologists and one information scientist specialized in biosemantics) reviewed and categorized the terms into 20 bins using the Ontology Term Organizer (OTO) (http://biosemantics.arizona.edu/OTO). Inter-curator variations were reviewed and expressed in the final ontologies. Results: Frequency, certainty, degree, and coverage terms with complete agreement among all curators were used as class labels or exact synonyms. Terms with different interpretations were either excluded or included using “broader synonym” or “not recommended” annotation properties. These annotations explicitly allow for the user to be aware of the semantic ambiguity associated with the terms and whether they should be used with caution or avoided. Expert categorization results showed that 16 out of 20 bins contained terms with full agreements, suggesting differentiating the modifiers into 5 levels/bins balances the need to differentiate modifiers and the need for the ontology to reflect user consensus. Two ontologies, developed using the Protege ontology editor, are made available as OWL files and can be downloaded from https://github.com/biosemantics/ontologies. Contribution: We built the first two modifier ontologies following a consensus-based approach with terms commonly used in taxonomic literature. The five-bin ontology has been used in the Explorer of Taxon Concepts web toolkit to compute the similarity between characters extracted from literature to facilitate taxon concepts alignments. The two ontologies will also be used in an ontology-informed authoring tool for taxonomists to facilitate consistency in modifier term usage. 

   more » « less
3. What We Can Learn from Jury Note Taking: A Content Analysis

   Denne, E. ( March 2020 , Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract: Jury notetaking can be controversial despite evidence suggesting benefits for recall and understanding. Research on note taking has historically focused on the deliberation process. Yet, little research explores the notes themselves. We developed a 10-item coding guide to explore what jurors take notes on (e.g., simple vs. complex evidence) and how they take notes (e.g., gist vs. specific representation). In general, jurors made gist representations of simple and complex information in their notes. This finding is consistent with Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) and suggests notes may serve as a general memory aid, rather than verbatim representation. Summary: The practice of jury notetaking in the courtroom is often contested. Some states allow it (e.g., Nebraska: State v. Kipf, 1990), while others forbid it (e.g., Louisiana: La. Code of Crim. Proc., Art. 793). Some argue notes may serve as a memory aid, increase juror confidence during deliberation, and help jurors engage in the trial (Hannaford & Munsterman, 2001; Heuer & Penrod, 1988, 1994). Others argue notetaking may distract jurors from listening to evidence, that juror notes may be given undue weight, and that those who took notes may dictate the deliberation process (Dann, Hans, & Kaye, 2005). While research has evaluated the efficacy of juror notes on evidence comprehension, little work has explored the specific content of juror notes. In a similar project on which we build, Dann, Hans, and Kaye (2005) found jurors took on average 270 words of notes each with 85% including references to jury instructions in their notes. In the present study we use a content analysis approach to examine how jurors take notes about simple and complex evidence. We were particularly interested in how jurors captured gist and specific (verbatim) information in their notes as they have different implications for information recall during deliberation. According to Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995), people extract “gist” or qualitative meaning from information, and also exact, verbatim representations. Although both are important for helping people make well-informed judgments, gist-based understandings are purported to be even more important than verbatim understanding (Reyna, 2008; Reyna & Brainer, 2007). As such, it could be useful to examine how laypeople represent information in their notes during deliberation of evidence. Methods Prior to watching a 45-minute mock bank robbery trial, jurors were given a pen and notepad and instructed they were permitted to take notes. The evidence included testimony from the defendant, witnesses, and expert witnesses from prosecution and defense. Expert testimony described complex mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence. The present analysis consists of pilot data representing 2,733 lines of notes from 52 randomly-selected jurors across 41 mock juries. Our final sample for presentation at AP-LS will consist of all 391 juror notes in our dataset. Based on previous research exploring jury note taking as well as our specific interest in gist vs. specific encoding of information, we developed a coding guide to quantify juror note-taking behaviors. Four researchers independently coded a subset of notes. Coders achieved acceptable interrater reliability [(Cronbach’s Alpha = .80-.92) on all variables across 20% of cases]. Prior to AP-LS, we will link juror notes with how they discuss scientific and non-scientific evidence during jury deliberation. Coding Note length. Before coding for content, coders counted lines of text. Each notepad line with at minimum one complete word was coded as a line of text. Gist information vs. Specific information. Any line referencing evidence was coded as gist or specific. We coded gist information as information that did not contain any specific details but summarized the meaning of the evidence (e.g., “bad, not many people excluded”). Specific information was coded as such if it contained a verbatim descriptive (e.g.,“<1 of people could be excluded”). We further coded whether this information was related to non-scientific evidence or related to the scientific DNA evidence. Mentions of DNA Evidence vs. Other Evidence. We were specifically interested in whether jurors mentioned the DNA evidence and how they captured complex evidence. When DNA evidence was mention we coded the content of the DNA reference. Mentions of the characteristics of mtDNA vs nDNA, the DNA match process or who could be excluded, heteroplasmy, references to database size, and other references were coded. Reliability. When referencing DNA evidence, we were interested in whether jurors mentioned the evidence reliability. Any specific mention of reliability of DNA evidence was noted (e.g., “MT DNA is not as powerful, more prone to error”). Expert Qualification. Finally, we were interested in whether jurors noted an expert’s qualifications. All references were coded (e.g., “Forensic analyst”). Results On average, jurors took 53 lines of notes (range: 3-137 lines). Most (83%) mentioned jury instructions before moving on to case specific information. The majority of references to evidence were gist references (54%) focusing on non-scientific evidence and scientific expert testimony equally (50%). When jurors encoded information using specific references (46%), they referenced non-scientific evidence and expert testimony equally as well (50%). Thirty-three percent of lines were devoted to expert testimony with every juror including at least one line. References to the DNA evidence were usually focused on who could be excluded from the FBIs database (43%), followed by references to differences between mtDNA vs nDNA (30%), and mentions of the size of the database (11%). Less frequently, references to DNA evidence focused on heteroplasmy (5%). Of those references that did not fit into a coding category (11%), most focused on the DNA extraction process, general information about DNA, and the uniqueness of DNA. We further coded references to DNA reliability (15%) as well as references to specific statistical information (14%). Finally, 40% of jurors made reference to an expert’s qualifications. Conclusion Jury note content analysis can reveal important information about how jurors capture trial information (e.g., gist vs verbatim), what evidence they consider important, and what they consider relevant and irrelevant. In our case, it appeared jurors largely created gist representations of information that focused equally on non-scientific evidence and scientific expert testimony. This finding suggests note taking may serve not only to represent information verbatim, but also and perhaps mostly as a general memory aid summarizing the meaning of evidence. Further, jurors’ references to evidence tended to be equally focused on the non-scientific evidence and the scientifically complex DNA evidence. This observation suggests jurors may attend just as much to non-scientific evidence as they to do complex scientific evidence in cases involving complicated evidence – an observation that might inform future work on understanding how jurors interpret evidence in cases with complex information. Learning objective: Participants will be able to describe emerging evidence about how jurors take notes during trial. 

   more » « less
4. Transcriptomic Evidence That Switching from Tobacco to Electronic Cigarettes Does Not Reverse Damage to the Respiratory Epithelium

   https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10070370  

   Pozuelos, Giovanna L. ; Kagda, Meenakshi ; Rubin, Matine A. ; Goniewicz, Maciej L. ; Girke, Thomas ; Talbot, Prue ( July 2022 , Toxics)

   The health benefits of switching from tobacco to electronic cigarettes (ECs) are neither confirmed nor well characterized. To address this problem, we used RNA-seq analysis to compare the nasal epithelium transcriptome from the following groups (n = 3 for each group): (1) former smokers who completely switched to second generation ECs for at least 6 months, (2) current tobacco cigarette smokers (CS), and (3) non-smokers (NS). Group three included one former cigarette smoker. The nasal epithelial biopsies from the EC users vs. NS had a higher number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) than biopsies from the CS vs. NS and CS vs. EC sets (1817 DEGs total for the EC vs. NS, 407 DEGs for the CS vs. NS, and 116 DEGs for the CS vs. EC comparison). In the EC vs. NS comparison, enriched gene ontology terms for the downregulated DEGs included cilium assembly and organization, whereas gene ontologies for upregulated DEGs included immune response, keratinization, and NADPH oxidase. Similarly, ontologies for cilium movement were enriched in the downregulated DEGs for the CS vs. NS group. Reactome pathway analysis gave similar results and also identified keratinization and cornified envelope in the upregulated DEGs in the EC vs. NS comparison. In the CS vs. NS comparison, the enriched Reactome pathways for upregulated DEGs included biological oxidations and several metabolic processes. Regulator effects identified for the EC vs. NS comparison were inflammatory response, cell movement of phagocytes and degranulation of phagocytes. Disease Ontology Sematic Enrichment analysis identified lung disease, mouth disease, periodontal disease and pulmonary fibrosis in the EC vs. NS comparison. Squamous metaplasia associated markers, keratin 10, keratin 13 and involucrin, were increased in the EC vs. NS comparison. Our transcriptomic analysis showed that gene expression profiles associated with EC use are not equivalent to those from non-smokers. EC use may interfere with airway epithelium recovery by promoting increased oxidative stress, inhibition of ciliogenesis, and maintaining an inflammatory response. These transcriptomic alterations may contribute to the progression of diseases with chronic EC use. 

   more » « less
5. Data sharing and ontology use among agricultural genetics, genomics, and breeding databases and resources of the Agbiodata Consortium

   https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baad076  

   Clarke, Jennifer L ; Cooper, Laurel D ; Poelchau, Monica F ; Berardini, Tanya Z ; Elser, Justin ; Farmer, Andrew D ; Ficklin, Stephen ; Kumari, Sunita ; Laporte, Marie-Angélique ; Nelson, Rex T ; et al ( January 2023 , Database)

   Over the last couple of decades, there has been a rapid growth in the number and scope of agricultural genetics, genomics and breeding databases and resources. The AgBioData Consortium (https://www.agbiodata.org/) currently represents 44 databases and resources (https://www.agbiodata.org/databases) covering model or crop plant and animal GGB data, ontologies, pathways, genetic variation and breeding platforms (referred to as ‘databases’ throughout). One of the goals of the Consortium is to facilitate FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data management and the integration of datasets which requires data sharing, along with structured vocabularies and/or ontologies. Two AgBioData working groups, focused on Data Sharing and Ontologies, respectively, conducted a Consortium-wide survey to assess the current status and future needs of the members in those areas. A total of 33 researchers responded to the survey, representing 37 databases. Results suggest that data-sharing practices by AgBioData databases are in a fairly healthy state, but it is not clear whether this is true for all metadata and data types across all databases; and that, ontology use has not substantially changed since a similar survey was conducted in 2017. Based on our evaluation of the survey results, we recommend (i) providing training for database personnel in a specific data-sharing techniques, as well as in ontology use; (ii) further study on what metadata is shared, and how well it is shared among databases; (iii) promoting an understanding of data sharing and ontologies in the stakeholder community; (iv) improving data sharing and ontologies for specific phenotypic data types and formats; and (v) lowering specific barriers to data sharing and ontology use, by identifying sustainability solutions, and the identification, promotion, or development of data standards. Combined, these improvements are likely to help AgBioData databases increase development efforts towards improved ontology use, and data sharing via programmatic means.

   Database URL https://www.agbiodata.org/databases

    

   more » « less