Paper detail

Presence-absence reasoning for evolutionary phenotypes

Nearly invariably, phenotypes are reported in the scientific literature in meticulous detail, utilizing the full expressivity of natural language. Often it is particularly these detailed observations (facts) that are of interest, and thus specific to the research questions that motivated observing and reporting them. However, research aiming to synthesize or integrate phenotype data across many studies or even fields is often faced with the need to abstract from detailed observations so as to construct phenotypic concepts that are common across many datasets rather than specific to a few. Yet, observations or facts that would fall under such abstracted concepts are typically not directly asserted by the original authors, usually because they are "obvious" according to common domain knowledge, and thus asserting them would be deemed redundant by anyone with sufficient domain knowledge. For example, a phenotype describing the length of a manual digit for an organism implicitly means that the organism must have had a hand, and thus a forelimb; the presence or absence of a forelimb may have supporting data across a far wider range of taxa than the length of a particular manual digit. Here we describe how within the Phenoscape project we use a pipeline of OWL axiom generation and reasoning steps to infer taxon-specific presence/absence of anatomical entities from anatomical phenotypes. Although presence/absence is all but one, and a seemingly simple way to abstract phenotypes across data sources, it can nonetheless be powerful for linking genotype to phenotype, and it is particularly relevant for constructing synthetic morphological supermatrices for comparative analysis; in fact presence/absence is one of the prevailing character observation types in published character matrices.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.