Source author record

Christophe Dessimoz

Christophe Dessimoz appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

7works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Federating and querying heterogeneous and distributed Web APIs and triple stores

Today's international corporations such as BASF, a leading company in the crop protection industry, produce and consume more and more data that are often fragmented and accessible through Web APIs. In addition, part of the proprietary and public data of BASF's interest are stored in triple stores and accessible with the SPARQL query language. Homogenizing the data access modes and the underlying semantics of the data without modifying or replicating the original data sources become important requirements to achieve data integration and interoperability. In this work, we propose a federated data integration architecture within an industrial setup, that relies on an ontology-based data access method. Our performance evaluation in terms of query response time showed that most queries can be answered in under 1 second.

preprint2016arXiv

An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy

Background: The increasing volume and variety of genotypic and phenotypic data is a major defining characteristic of modern biomedical sciences. At the same time, the limitations in technology for generating data and the inherently stochastic nature of biomolecular events have led to the discrepancy between the volume of data and the amount of knowledge gleaned from it. A major bottleneck in our ability to understand the molecular underpinnings of life is the assignment of function to biological macromolecules, especially proteins. While molecular experiments provide the most reliable annotation of proteins, their relatively low throughput and restricted purview have led to an increasing role for computational function prediction. However, accurately assessing methods for protein function prediction and tracking progress in the field remain challenging. Methodology: We have conducted the second Critical Assessment of Functional Annotation (CAFA), a timed challenge to assess computational methods that automatically assign protein function. One hundred twenty-six methods from 56 research groups were evaluated for their ability to predict biological functions using the Gene Ontology and gene-disease associations using the Human Phenotype Ontology on a set of 3,681 proteins from 18 species. CAFA2 featured significantly expanded analysis compared with CAFA1, with regards to data set size, variety, and assessment metrics. To review progress in the field, the analysis also compared the best methods participating in CAFA1 to those of CAFA2. Conclusions: The top performing methods in CAFA2 outperformed the best methods from CAFA1, demonstrating that computational function prediction is improving. This increased accuracy can be attributed to the combined effect of the growing number of experimental annotations and improved methods for function prediction.

preprint2016arXiv

Clustering genes of common evolutionary history

Phylogenetic inference can potentially result in a more accurate tree using data from multiple loci. However, if the loci are incongruent--due to events such as incomplete lineage sorting or horizontal gene transfer--it can be misleading to infer a single tree. To address this, many previous contributions have taken a mechanistic approach, by modelling specific processes. Alternatively, one can cluster loci without assuming how these incongruencies might arise. Such "process-agnostic" approaches typically infer a tree for each locus and cluster these. There are, however, many possible combinations of tree distance and clustering methods; their comparative performance in the context of tree incongruence is largely unknown. Furthermore, because standard model selection criteria such as AIC cannot be applied to problems with a variable number of topologies, the issue of inferring the optimal number of clusters is poorly understood. Here, we perform a large-scale simulation study of phylogenetic distances and clustering methods to infer loci of common evolutionary history. We observe that the best-performing combinations are distances accounting for branch lengths followed by spectral clustering or Ward's method. We also introduce two statistical tests to infer the optimal number of clusters and show that they strongly outperform the silhouette criterion, a general-purpose heuristic. We illustrate the usefulness of the approach by (i) identifying errors in a previous phylogenetic analysis of yeast species and (ii) identifying topological incongruence among newly sequenced loci of the globeflower fly genus Chiastocheta. We release treeCl, a new program to cluster genes of common evolutionary history (http://git.io/treeCl).

preprint2016arXiv

Gene Ontology: Pitfalls, Biases, Remedies

The Gene Ontology (GO) is a formidable resource but there are several considerations about it that are essential to understand the data and interpret it correctly. The GO is sufficiently simple that it can be used without deep understanding of its structure or how it is developed, which is both a strength and a weakness. In this chapter, we discuss some common misinterpretations of the ontology and the annotations. A better understanding of the pitfalls and the biases in the GO should help users make the most of this very rich resource. We also review some of the misconceptions and misleading assumptions commonly made about GO, including the effect of data incompleteness, the importance of annotation qualifiers, and the transitivity or lack thereof associated with different ontology relations. We also discuss several biases that can confound aggregate analyses such as gene enrichment analyses. For each of these pitfalls and biases, we suggest remedies and best practices.

preprint2016arXiv

Phylo.io: interactive viewing and comparison of large phylogenetic trees on the web

Phylogenetic trees are pervasively used to depict evolutionary relationships. Increasingly, researchers need to visualize large trees and compare multiple large trees inferred for the same set of taxa (reflecting uncertainty in the tree inference or genuine discordance among the loci analysed). Existing tree visualization tools are however not well suited to these tasks. In particular, side-by-side comparison of trees can prove challenging beyond a few dozen taxa. Here, we introduce Phylo.io, a web application to visualize and compare phylogenetic trees side-by-side. Its distinctive features are: highlighting of similarities and differences between two trees, automatic identification of the best matching rooting and leaf order, scalability to very large trees, high usability, multiplatform support via standard HTML5 implementation, and possibility to store and share visualisations. The tool can be freely accessed at http://phylo.io. The code for the associated JavaScript library is available at https://github.com/DessimozLab/phylo-io under an MIT open source license.

preprint2016arXiv

Primer on the Gene Ontology

The Gene Ontology (GO) project is the largest resource for cataloguing gene function. The combination of solid conceptual underpinnings and a practical set of features have made the GO a widely adopted resource in the research community and an essential resource for data analysis. In this chapter, we provide a concise primer for all users of the GO. We briefly introduce the structure of the ontology and explain how to interpret annotations associated with the GO.

preprint2012arXiv

Who Watches the Watchmen? An Appraisal of Benchmarks for Multiple Sequence Alignment

Multiple sequence alignment (MSA) is a fundamental and ubiquitous technique in bioinformatics used to infer related residues among biological sequences. Thus alignment accuracy is crucial to a vast range of analyses, often in ways difficult to assess in those analyses. To compare the performance of different aligners and help detect systematic errors in alignments, a number of benchmarking strategies have been pursued. Here we present an overview of the main strategies--based on simulation, consistency, protein structure, and phylogeny--and discuss their different advantages and associated risks. We outline a set of desirable characteristics for effective benchmarking, and evaluate each strategy in light of them. We conclude that there is currently no universally applicable means of benchmarking MSA, and that developers and users of alignment tools should base their choice of benchmark depending on the context of application--with a keen awareness of the assumptions underlying each benchmarking strategy.