Downloaded 27 times
![GO’s initial attempts at
causality
GO:0086094
positive regulation of ryanodine-sensitive
calcium-release channel activity by
adrenergic receptor signaling pathway
involved in positive regulation of cardiac
muscle contraction
Mungall’s law[??*]: an inexpressive bio-database schema
will be abused to the maximum extent possible in order for
curators to express complexities of biology
[*] I have a feeling I’m not the first to express this
GO:0086023
adenylate cyclase-activating adrenergic receptor
signaling pathway involved in heart process
subClassOf](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/causal-reasoning-using-ro-2018-181015031000/85/Causal-reasoning-using-the-Relation-Ontology-32-320.jpg)
Uploaded byChris Mungall
Causal reasoning using the Relation Ontology
The document discusses the need for standardized relationship types in biological data and ontologies. It provides an overview of the Relation Ontology (RO), which defines over 450 standardized relationship types organized hierarchically. RO provides a foundation for integrating multiple knowledge graphs and represents relationships in ontologies, linked data, and knowledge bases. It enables logical reasoning and inference across graphs through properties like transitivity.
More Related Content
Similar to Causal reasoning using the Relation Ontology
More from Chris Mungall
Causal reasoning using the Relation Ontology
- 1. Causal Reasoning usingthe Relation Ontology Chris Mungall Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory cjmungall@lbl.gov
- 2. Outline ● The needfor an ontology of relations ● Tour of the Relation Ontology ● Use in GO Causal Inference ● Causal Relations for Diseases ● Integrating multiple knowledge graphs
- 3. Why we needrelationship types
- 4. Why we needrelationship types Melania Trump person Barack Obama person Michelle Obama person Vladimir Putin Russia Donald Trump person USA country country person
- 5. Why we needrelationship types for biological data Gene C gene Gene B gene Disease X Gene A gene Disease Y disease disease
- 6. Why we needstandardised relationship types for biological data B gene A gene INTERACTS_WITH B gene A gene physically interacts with B gene A gene binds database 1 database 2 database 3
- 7. Why we needstandardised relationship types for biological data B gene A gene affects B gene A gene regulates B gene A gene PHOSPHORYLATES database 4 database 5 database 6
- 8. MeSH Why we need relationshiptypes in biological ontologies
- 9. Application to linkeddata { “id”: “ENSEMBL:ENSG000000001”, “symbol”: “…” “type”: “gene”, “has_part” : [ { “id” : “ENSEMBL:ENST0000…”, “type” : “transcript”, “encodes” : { “id” : “ENSEMBL:ENSP....”, “type” : “protein”, …
- 10. Application to linkeddata { “id”: “ENSEMBL:ENSG000000001”, “symbol”: “…” “type”: “gene”, “has_part” : [ { “id” : “ENSEMBL:ENST0000…”, “type” : “transcript”, “encodes” : { “id” : “ENSEMBL:ENSP....”, “type” : “protein”, … {“@context”: { “symbol” : “rdfs:label”, “type” : “rdf:type”, “gene” : “http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/SO_0000704”, “transcript” : “http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/SO_0000673”, “has_part” : ???, “encodes” : ???, …
- 11. Relations are theglue for integration https://twitter.com/dhimmel/status/810996703901777920
- 12. OBO Relation Ontology ●An ontology of Relationship Types ◦ Hierarchically organized ● OWL provides mathematical-logical foundation ● Currently > 450 relations ◦ “Core” relations (e.g. part of) ◦ General purpose (e.g. has input) ◦ Domain-centric (e.g. phosphorylates) ● Originally used for relationships in ontologies ◦ Now used in Knowledge Graphs, Linked Data
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18. Description Logics providebasis for logical reasoning ● TBox ◦ Classes and class axioms ⚫e.g. nucleus SubClassOf organelle, part_of some cytoplasm ◦ (Most ontologies are TBox-centric) ● ABox ◦ Instances and instance-level axioms ⚫e.g. patient123 has_sequence genome567 ◦ (Typically not asserted in ontologies) ● RBox ◦ Object Properties (aka Relations) ⚫e.g. part of is Transitive ◦ (RO is RBox-centric)
- 19. SubPropertyOf Axioms regulates positively regulates negatively regulates SubPropertyOfSubPropertyOf x positivelyregulates y ➔ x regulates y 606 SubPropertyOf Axioms
- 20. InverseOf Axioms regulates regulatedby x regulates y ⬄ y regulated by x 105 InverseOf Axioms Note: relations often have an arbitrary canonical direction, properties of inverse is trivially inferred
- 21. Domain and Range expressedin material anatomical entity expressed in Domain: gene Range: material anatomical entity gene 221 Domain/Range Axioms BFO and OBO Core used for constraints
- 22. Characteristics ● Transitive ◦ xR y / y R z ➔ x R z ◦ Examples: part of, develops from ● Symmetric ◦ x R y ➔ y R x ◦ Examples: adjacent to ● Reflexive ● Anti-symmetric ● Functional 129 Axioms
- 23. SWRL (Semantic WebRule Language) ● Examples: ◦ child_of(?x, ?y)∧brother_of(?y, ?z) ➔ has_uncle(?x, ?z) ◦ negatively_regulates(?x, ?y) ∧ negatively_regulates(?y, ?z) ➔ positively_regulates(?x, ?z) 18 SWRL Rules
- 24. Property Chains ● Morecompact way to write SWRL rules ◦ Uses function composition symbol ‘•’ ◦ Less expressive ◦ Examples: ⚫child_of • has_brother ➔ has uncle ⚫negatively regulates • negatively regulates ➔ positively regulates 139 Property Chain Axioms
- 25. RO Release Process ●All coordinated via GitHub ◦ Issues: https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/isssues ◦ All changes proposed via Pull Requests https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/pulls ◦ Validated by Travis-CI ◦ Merged by core editors ● All released are vetted ◦ Automatically ⚫ HermiT OWL Reasoner ⚫ ROBOT Release Tool ⚫ Ontology Development Kit Docker ◦ Manually https://github.com/INCATools/ontology-development-kit
- 26. RO Core ● Generic:apply across multiple domains ● E.g. ⚫every finger part of a hand ⚫every M phase part of a cell cycle ⚫Cambridge part of UK
- 27. General purpose andspecific relations
- 28. RO for particulardomains ● Ecology ◦ Biotic interaction relationships ● Anatomy ● Evolutionary Relationships ● Genome Features ● Causal activity models ● Disease causation
- 29. How RO isused ● Ontologies: ◦ Relationships between classes ◦ Widely used in OBO ● Knowledge Graphs: ⚫SPARQL endpoints ⚫Neo4J and other graph databases ⚫JSON-LD ⚫Relational Databases (e.g. GMOD/Chado)
- 30. Usage of ROin OBO ● Count of number of ontologies using each relation
- 31. Use of ROin Knowledge Graphs ● GO Causal Annotation Graphs ● Disease/Phenotype Graphs
- 32. GO’s initial attemptsat causality GO:0086094 positive regulation of ryanodine-sensitive calcium-release channel activity by adrenergic receptor signaling pathway involved in positive regulation of cardiac muscle contraction Mungall’s law[??*]: an inexpressive bio-database schema will be abused to the maximum extent possible in order for curators to express complexities of biology [*] I have a feeling I’m not the first to express this GO:0086023 adenylate cyclase-activating adrenergic receptor signaling pathway involved in heart process subClassOf
- 33.
- 34. GO Causal ActivityModel (GO-CAM) RDF Graphs
- 36.
- 37. RO axioms supportinference across graphs of individuals grk-2 Cele#59dc728000000288 acts_upstream_of_positive_effect G-protein coupled serotonin receptor activity#59dc728000000347 Arachne Reasoner: https://github.com/balhoff/arachne
- 38.
- 39. Reaction -> Activity BMP2binds to the receptor complex (Reactome) GO:0005160 Mapping rules
- 40.
- 41. Causal Activity Flow Clathrin-mediatedendocytosis
- 42. OWL Reasoning Infers more specificGO assignments using GO OWL axiomatization
- 43. Shortcut Relations andinference rules unify perspectives Any GO kinase activity Any GO activity GeneProduct1 GeneProduct2 directly regulates enabled by enabled by phosphorylates GO-CAM View (activity centric, semantics on nodes) entity- centric (SIF, CausalTab, ..)
- 44.
- 45. Future Applications ● BooleanModeling ● Causal Gene Set Enrichment
- 46. MONDO: Monarch Disease Ontology ●Unifies multiple disease resources ● Diseases as states ● Diseases have causal basis in ◦ disruption of a process ◦ dysfunction of a structure, causing disruption of a biological process ● Diseases have features ◦ also causally linked
- 48.
- 49. Unifying multiple knowledge graphs ●KGs emerging as popular ML representation ◦ node embedding, NNs, link prediction ● Challenge ◦ combining different KGs together ● Different standards ◦ RO/OBO ◦ Wikidata ◦ SIO http://sio.semanticscience.org/ ◦ Many KGs have no standards, ad-hoc relations ⚫ e.g. SemMedDB
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54. Conclusions ● Standardized relationsrequired for ◦ ontologies ◦ knowledge graphs ◦ bioinformatics exchange formats ● RO provides ◦ Broad set of relations ◦ Different use cases ◦ OWL axiomatization enables inference ● Uses ◦ GO ◦ Disease and phenotype
- 55. Acknowledgments ● Relation Ontology ◦Matt Brush ◦ David Osumi-Sutherland ◦ James Overton ◦ Jim Balhoff ◦ Suzanna Lewis ◦ Anne Thessen ◦ Mike Sinclair ◦ David Hill ◦ Kimberley Van Auken ◦ Larry Hunter ◦ Barry Smith ◦ Alan Ruttenberg ◦ Melissa Haendel ◦ Paul Thomas ● MONDO ◦ Nicole Vasilevsky ◦ Peter Robinson ◦ EBI curators ◦ GARD curators ◦ ClinGen curators ● BioLink ◦ Harold Solbrig ◦ Deepak Unni ◦ Seth Carbon ◦ Gregg Stuppe ◦ Laurent-Phillipe Albou ◦ Tim Putman ◦ Kent Shefchek ◦ Chris Bizon ◦ Michel Dumontier ◦ Lance Hannestad ◦ Richard Bruskiewich