Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Biomedical Data/Content Acquisition, Curation

  • Nigam ShahEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_37


Biomedical data annotation


The largest source of biomedical knowledge is the published literature, where results of experimental studies are reported in natural language. Published literature is hard to query, integrate computationally or to reason over. The task of reading published papers (or other forms of experimental results such as pharmacogenomics datasets) and distilling them down into structured knowledge that can be stored in databases as well as knowledgebases is called curation. The statements comprising the structured knowledge are called annotations. The level of structure in annotation statements can vary from loose declarations of “associations” between concepts (such as associating a paper with the concept “colon cancer”) to statements that declare a precisely defined relationship between concepts with explicit semantics. There is an inherent tradeoff between the level of detail of the structured annotations and the time and effort required to...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Ashburner M et al. Geneontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25(1):25–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baral C et al. A knowledge based approach for representing and reasoning about signaling networks. Bioinformatics. 2004;20(1):15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumgartner Jr WA et al. Manual curation is not sufficient for annotation of genomic databases. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(13):41–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    BioPax-Consortium. BioPAX: biological pathways exchange, 2006. Available from: http://www.biopax.org/2006
  5. 5.
    Bodenreider O, Stevens R. Bio-ontologies: current trends and future directions. Brief. Bioinform. 2006;7(3):256–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Camon EB et al. An evaluation of GO annotation retrieval for BioCreAtIvE and GOA. BMC Bioinf. 2005;6(Suppl 1):S17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cherry JM et al. SGD: saccharomyceas genome database. Nucl Acids Res. 1998;26(1):73–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciccaresse P, Wu E, Clark T. An overview of the SWAN 1.0 ontology of scientific discourse. In: Proceeding of 16th International World Wide Web Conference; 2007.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark T, Kinoshita J. Alzforum and SWAN: the present and future of scientific web communities. Brief Bioinform. 2007;8(3):163–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao Y et al. SWAN: a distributed knowledge infrastructure for Alzheimer disease research. J Web Semant. 2006;4(3):222–8.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gibson M. Phenote. Berkeley Bioinformatics and Ontology Project (BBOP), National Center for Biomedical Ontology, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunter L, Cohen KB. Biomedical language processing: what’s beyond PubMed? Mol Cell. 2006;21(5):589–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joshi-Tope G et al. Reactome: a knowledge base of biological pathways. Nucl Acids Res. 2005;33(Database Issue):D428–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karp PD. An ontology for biological function based on molecular interactions. Bioinformatics. 2000;16(3):269–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karp PD. Pathway databases: a case study in computational symbolic theories. Science. 2001;293(5537):2040–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Katz AE et al. Molecular staging of genitourinary malignancies. Urology. 1996;47(6):948–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leslie M. Netwatch. Science. 2006;312(5781):1721.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Massar JP et al. BioLingua: a programmable knowledge environment for biologists. Bioinformatics. 2004;21(2):199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Racunas SA et al. HyBrow: a prototype system for computer-aided hypothesis evaluation. Bioinformatics. 2004;20(Suppl 1):257–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Rise of the Bio-Librarian - the field of biocuration expands as the data grow. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23316/
  22. 22.
    Ruttenberg A et al. Advancing translational research with the Semantic Web. BMC Bioinf. 2007;8(Suppl 3):S2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rzhetsky A et al. GeneWays: a system for extracting, analyzing, visualizing, and integrating molecular pathway data. J Biomed Inform. 2004;37(1):43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Second International Biocuration Meeting, San Jose, 25–28 Oct, 2007. http://biocurator.org/Mtg2007/index.html
  25. 25.
    Shrager J et al. Deductive biocomputing. PLoS One. 2007;2(4):e339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sim I, Olasov B, Carini S. The Trial Bank system: capturing randomized trials for evidence-based medicine. In: American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium Proceedings; 2003. p. 1076Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith B et al. Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biol. 2005;6(5):R46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spasic I, Ananiadou S, McNaught J, Kumar A. Text mining and ontologies in biomedicine: making sense of raw text. Brief Bioinform. 2005;6(3):239–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    The National Center for Biomedical Ontology. 2006. Available at: www.biontology.orgGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thorn CF, Klein TE, Altman RB. PharmGKB: the pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics knowledge base. In: Methods in molecular biology, vol. 311. Springer. p. 179–91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Vipul Kashyap
    • 1
  1. 1.Director, Clinical ProgramsCIGNA HealthcareBloomfieldUSA