Search for: All records

Morphology remains a primary source of phylogenetic information for many groups of organisms, and the only one for most fossil taxa. Organismal anatomy is not a collection of randomly assembled and independent “parts”, but instead a set of dependent and hierarchically nested entities resulting from ontogeny and phylogeny. How do we make sense of these dependent and at times redundant characters? One promising approach is using ontologies—structured controlled vocabularies that summarize knowledge about different properties of anatomical entities, including developmental and structural dependencies. Here, we assess whether evolutionary patterns can explain the proximity of ontology-annotated characters within an ontology. To do so, we measure phylogenetic information across characters and evaluate if it matches the hierarchical structure given by ontological knowledge—in much the same way as across-species diversity structure is given by phylogeny. We implement an approach to evaluate the Bayesian phylogenetic information (BPI) content and phylogenetic dissonance among ontology-annotated anatomical data subsets. We applied this to data sets representing two disparate animal groups: bees (Hexapoda: Hymenoptera: Apoidea, 209 chars) and characiform fishes (Actinopterygii: Ostariophysi: Characiformes, 463 chars). For bees, we find that BPI is not substantially explained by anatomy since dissonance is often high among morphologically related anatomical entities. For fishes, we find substantial information for two clusters of anatomical entities instantiating concepts from the jaws and branchial arch bones, but among-subset information decreases and dissonance increases substantially moving to higher-level subsets in the ontology. We further applied our approach to address particular evolutionary hypotheses with an example of morphological evolution in miniature fishes. While we show that phylogenetic information does match ontology structure for some anatomical entities, additional relationships and processes, such as convergence, likely play a substantial role in explaining BPI and dissonance, and merit future investigation. Our work demonstrates how complex morphological data sets can be interrogated with ontologies by allowing one to access how information is spread hierarchically across anatomical concepts, how congruent this information is, and what sorts of processes may play a role in explaining it: phylogeny, development, or convergence. [Apidae; Bayesian phylogenetic information; Ostariophysi; Phenoscape; phylogenetic dissonance; semantic similarity.]

 

Abstract Background Identification of genes responsible for anatomical entities is a major requirement in many fields including developmental biology, medicine, and agriculture. Current wet lab techniques used for this purpose, such as gene knockout, are high in resource and time consumption. Protein–protein interaction (PPI) networks are frequently used to predict disease genes for humans and gene candidates for molecular functions, but they are rarely used to predict genes for anatomical entities. Moreover, PPI networks suffer from network quality issues, which can be a limitation for their usage in predicting candidate genes. Therefore, we developed an integrative framework to improve the candidate gene prediction accuracy for anatomical entities by combining existing experimental knowledge about gene-anatomical entity relationships with PPI networks using anatomy ontology annotations. We hypothesized that this integration improves the quality of the PPI networks by reducing the number of false positive and false negative interactions and is better optimized to predict candidate genes for anatomical entities. We used existing Uberon anatomical entity annotations for zebrafish and mouse genes to construct gene networks by calculating semantic similarity between the genes. These anatomy-based gene networks were semantic networks, as they were constructed based on the anatomy ontology annotations that were obtained from the experimental data in the literature. We integrated these anatomy-based gene networks with mouse and zebrafish PPI networks retrieved from the STRING database and compared the performance of their network-based candidate gene predictions. Results According to evaluations of candidate gene prediction performance tested under four different semantic similarity calculation methods (Lin, Resnik, Schlicker, and Wang), the integrated networks, which were semantically improved PPI networks, showed better performances by having higher area under the curve values for receiver operating characteristic and precision-recall curves than PPI networks for both zebrafish and mouse. Conclusion Integration of existing experimental knowledge about gene-anatomical entity relationships with PPI networks via anatomy ontology improved the candidate gene prediction accuracy and optimized them for predicting candidate genes for anatomical entities.