Skip to main content

Why cross-species phenomics informatics is critical to the PMI

Genomics, electronic health records, participant-provided data, sensors, and mobile health technologies can all contribute to personalized medicine. However, we currently cannot achieve statistical correlations amongst these almost unlimited number of parameters that will be collected by the PMI and the depth of mechanistic understanding that will be required for treatment stratification and the development of novel, targeted therapies. The promise of personalized medicine requires deep knowledge of the relationships between genotype, phenotype, and environmental variables - but we simply don’t have enough data. For example, in the ExAC database there are 3,230 genes with near-complete depletion of predicted protein-truncating variants, where 72% of these genes having no currently established human disease phenotype. If we look across organisms, we see that of these 2311 genes with unknown causal phenotypes/diseases, 88% have an associated phenotype in an ortholog, with 56% having ortholog-phenotypes in at least two species.

To much more deeply understand disease mechanisms, we must identify the relevant effector genes, variants, protein interactions, metabolites, environmental factors, etc. such that diagnostics and treatment selection strategies can be designed. The only way to bridge this gap is to rely on experimental studies in genetic diseases models. The 62K publications in PubMed (search “model organism”) and overwhelming support for model organism research is a testament to this perspective. However, there are enormous extant data sets that continue to accrue, but for which we have not yet made computationally accessible enough for the scale of the PMI. We must have a two pronged approach: put existing knowledge to more effective use now, and create processes such that new knowledge that can be applied more readily in the future.

A few of the biggest roadblocks in making model organism data computable is the lack of interoperability between the way in which we describe clinical phenotypes, and phenotypes in model organisms, and in the way these data are shared. The use of informatics approaches, or “phenomics” are pivotal to overcoming these issues and thereby enabling clinical use of animal model genotype-phenotype data. A computable representation of model organism phenotype data has already been shown to allow personalized diagnostics, and a number of publications (1), NIH-driven workshops (2), and RFIs (3) have aimed to inform such approaches. Mice and other model organisms have been invaluable in developing treatments and are increasingly being used to model disease subclasses associated with specific mutations in human and to test novel, stratified therapies - as per the goal of the PMI (for example).

Although it is possible to understand such studies without sophisticated cross-species analysis, as ever more data accumulates, it will be essential to have sophisticated data models for humans that by design will be compatible for integration of phenotypic and treatment related data across the spectrum of biology. What is needed now are advancements in the computable representation of phenotype data across species, annotation of existing and future data in a computable fashion, algorithms to relate model data to humans, and tools to make publication of computable phenotypic data easier, more accessible, and of higher quality.

We are only beginning to realize the vision of the PMI, but it can only happen if we effectively utilize all the biological knowledge that we have at hand. And for that, we require improvements to phenomics - similar to what has been previously done for genomics - to leverage model organism data to fill the gaps that we will never fill via human data alone.




Popular posts from this blog

Why the Human Phenotype Ontology?

We've often been asked, why should we use the Human Phenotype Ontology to describe patient phenotypes, rather than a more widely-used clinical vocabulary such as ICD or SNOMED? Here are the answers to some of these frequently asked questions:

1. We should use what other big NIH projects, like ClinVar, are using.

ClinVar is using HPO terms to describe phenotypes. This is done in collaboration with MedGen, which has imported HPO terms. Here is an example:

There are now many bioinformatics tools that use the HPO to empower exome diagnostics. The Monarch team has published two of these recently

1) Exomiser (Robinson et al., 2014 Genome Res.) => For discovering new disease genes via model organism data, several successful use cases at UDP and elsewhere

2) PhenIX (Zemojtel et al., 2014 Science Translational Medicine) => For clinical diagnostics of “difficult” cases. This paper was on Russ Altman's year in review at AMIA this year.

Also, a num…

Finally, a medical terminology that patients, doctors, and machines can all understand.

By Nicole Vasilevsky, Mark Engelstad, Erin Foster, Julie McMurry, Chris Mungall, Peter Robinson, Sebastian Köhler, Melissa Haendel
For many patients with rare and undiagnosed diseases, getting an accurate diagnosis, or even finding the appropriate experts is a long and winding road. To accelerate and facilitate this process, we developed a medical vocabulary (“HPO”) which is comprised of 12,000 terms that doctors can use to codify the precise and distinct observations about patients and their conditions. The HPO is structured in a way that enables machines to intelligently compare a patient’s profile with what scientists worldwide have already uncovered about diseases and their genetic causes.
Until now, most of the HPO labels and synonyms were composed of clinical terms unfamiliar to patients. For example, a patient may know they are ‘color-blind’, but may not be familiar with the clinical term ‘Dyschromatopsia’. This is why we developed a layer of 5,000 corresponding terms that can b…

How to annotate a patient's phenotypic profile

How to annotate a patient's phenotypic profile using PhenoTips and the Human Phenotype Ontology PurposeWe have observed that performance of computational search algorithms within and across species improves if a comprehensive list of phenotypic features is recorded. It is helpful if the person annotating thinks of the set of annotations as a query against all known phenotype profiles. Therefore, the set of phenotypes chosen for the annotation must be as specific as possible, and represent the most salient and important observable phenotypes. Towards this end, Monarch has been asked to provide guidance on how to create a quality patient profile using the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO). Below we detail our annotation guidelines for use in the PhenoTips application, our partner organization. 

The guidelines can also be considered more generically so as to be applicable to any annotation effort using HPO or even using other phenotype ontologies. The annotations should be limited to th…