Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Differences among cell-structure ontologies: FMA, GO, & CCO.

Alan P Au1, Xiang Li, John H Gennari

  • 1Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Washington, Box 357240, Seattle, WA 98195-7240, USA. aau@u.washington.edu

AMIA ... Annual Symposium Proceedings. AMIA Symposium
|January 24, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

From FAIR to CURE: guidelines for computational models of biological systems.

NPJ systems biology and applications·2026
Same author

Variogram Modeling of Spatially Variant Early Response to Therapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium·2026
Same author

KGBN: Augmenting and optimizing logical gene regulatory networks using knowledge graphs.

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology·2026
Same author

Multiparametric MRI Markers Associated with Breast Cancer Risk in Women with Dense Breasts.

Cancers·2025
Same author

Verification and reproducible curation of the BioModels repository.

PLoS computational biology·2025
Same author

Elucidating Neurodevelopmental Trajectories in Cancer with Topic Modeling: Revealing Persistent External Granule Layer Lineages in Medulloblastoma.

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology·2025

Comparing the Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA), Gene Ontology (GO), and Cell Component Ontology (CCO) reveals substantial differences in cellular structure modeling. These variations impact knowledge sharing and ontology mapping efforts.

Area of Science:

  • Bioinformatics
  • Ontology Engineering
  • Cell Biology

Background:

  • Knowledge sharing across different scientific domains is often hindered by the use of disparate models and ontologies.
  • Comparing existing ontologies for cellular structure can illuminate challenges in knowledge integration.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze and describe the differences between the Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA), Gene Ontology (GO), and Cell Component Ontology (CCO) in their modeling of cellular structure.
  • To identify challenges in knowledge sharing arising from variations in ontology construction and scope.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative analysis of three distinct ontologies: FMA, GO, and CCO.
  • Examination of differences in language, granularity, breadth of coverage, and model organization.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of ontology construction methodologies, including theory-driven vs. emergent approaches.

    • Main Results:

    • Substantial differences were found among FMA, GO, and CCO, contrary to initial expectations of similar scope.
    • Variations in modeling stem from different construction principles (theory-driven vs. emergent) and the development of application ontologies from reference ontologies.
    • Specific differences were identified in terminology, level of detail, coverage, and structural organization.

    Conclusions:

    • Understanding these differences is crucial for effective knowledge sharing and integration in cell biology.
    • The study provides insights into mapping related ontologies by analyzing their structural and conceptual variations.
    • This work contributes to developing strategies for harmonizing biological ontologies and improving data interoperability.