Request for new ontology pbpko

[Crispae]

Title

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling ontology

Short Description

Ontology aligned for PBPK modelling in life science domain

Description

The Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetics (PBPK) ontology is a comprehensive framework designed to systematically capture and represent the intricate relationships and behaviors of pharmacokinetic processes within living organisms. At its core, the ontology encompasses a rich array of classes spanning physiological parameters, types of PBPK, biological compartments, and mathematical models that collectively contribute to the understanding of drug disposition and behavior in the body.the PBPK ontology serves as a unifying resource for researchers, clinicians, pharmacologists, and drug developers alike.By providing a structured vocabulary and semantic framework, it facilitates communication, data integration, and knowledge sharing across diverse research endeavors, thereby fostering collaboration and advancing scientific inquiry in pharmacokinetics and related disciplines.

Identifier Space

PBPKO

License

CC-BY 4.0

Domain

simulation

Source Code Repository

https://github.com/Crispae/pbpko

Homepage

https://crispae.github.io/pbpko/

Issue Tracker

https://github.com/Crispae/pbpko/issues

Contribution Guidelines

https://github.com/Crispae/pbpko/blob/main/docs/contributing.md

Ontology Download Link

https://github.com/Crispae/pbpko/blob/main/pbpko.owl

Contact Name

saurav kumar

Contact Email

saurav.kumar@iispv.cat

Contact GitHub Username

Crispae

Contact ORCID Identifier

0000-0003-0593-2598

Formats

• OWL RDF/XML (.owl)
• OBO (.obo)
• OBO Graph JSON (.json)

Dependencies

No response

Related

No response

Usages

No response

Intended Use Cases and/or Related Projects

PBPKO ontology will serve as a foundational resource for annotating and contextualizing Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetics (PBPK) models within the domains of drug research and chemical risk assessment. PBPK model is a type of system biology model, hence direct integration of ontology with SBML allow automated annotation of model, if follow the standard approach.PBPK models is actively being develeoped in European project PARC.

Data Sources

PBPK expert community
Literature

Additional comments or remarks

As the PBPKO ontology is in the development phase, it benefits from continuous input and refinement by semantics.Requesting an Ontology ID space accelerates the process of integrating the ontology into models developed within the PARC project.

OBO Foundry Pre-registration Checklist

• I have read and understood the registration process instructions and the registration checklist.
• There is no other ontology in the OBO Foundry which would be an appropriate place for my terms. If there were, I have contacted the editors, and we decided in mutual agreement that a separate ontology is more appropriate.
• My ontology has a specific release file with a version IRI and a dc:license annotation, serialised in RDF/XML.
• My identifiers (classes and properties IRIs) are formatted according to the OBO Foundry Identifier Policy
• My term labels are in English and conform to the OBO Foundry Naming Conventions
• I understand that term definitions are key to understanding the intentions of a term, especially when the ontology is used in curation. I made sure that a reasonable majority of terms in my ontology--and all top level terms--have definitions, in English, using the IAO:0000115 property.
• For every term in my ontology, I checked whether another OBO Foundry ontology has one with the same meaning. If so, I re-used that term directly (not by cross-reference, by directly using the IRI).
• For all relationship properties (Object and Data Property), I checked whether the Relation Ontology (RO) includes an appropriate one. I understand that aligning with RO is an essential part of the overall alignment between OBO ontologies!
• For the selection of appropriate annotation properties, I looked at OMO first. I understand that aligning ontology metadata and term-level metadata is essential for cross-integration of OBO ontologies.
• If I was not sure about the meaning of any of the checkboxes above, I have consulted with a member of the OBO Foundry for advice, e.g., through the obo-discuss Google Group.
• The requested ID space does not conflict with another ID space found in other registries such as the Bioregistry and BioPortal, see here for a complete list.

[pfabry]

Dear @Crispae,

Thank you for your submission. The review will be executed as a two stage process:

• First, you will have to pass OBO NOR Dashboard. Pass means that no check apart from Users and Versioning may be red.
• After you have successfully passed the Dashboard you will be assigned an OBO Operations committee member to review the ontology. The assigned reviewer is to be considered the final arbiter of requirements; look to that reviewer's guidance regarding which suggestions made by other reviewers must be done, which suggestions are simply good to do but not required, and which should not be done.

Usually, the review will result in an opportunity for you to improve the ontology. When the reviewer believes the ontology is ready for presentation to the OBO Operations Committee, they will present your ontology during an OBO Operations Call. This gives other members of the committee the opportunity to assess your work.

When a decision is reached by the committee you will be informed here on the issue tracker. The process can take any number of weeks or months, depending on the case at hand.
Please let us know about any reasons you might have for increased urgency.

You will be informed once your ontology is loaded in the OBO NOR Dashboard.

Good luck!

[pfabry]

@Crispae
Your ontology has been added to the OBO NOR Dashboard and has passed the technical review.
@addiehl has been assigned to review your ontology. In addition, a new check is currently implemented: it consists in a lexical match of your original terms with those already existing in OBO Foundry published ontologies. The goal is to prevent the duplication of terms with similar meanings (cf. Review SOP). A list of terms that are potential duplicates will be provided soon.

[Crispae]

@pfabry Thanks for assigning the reviewer, we will co-ordinate with @addiehl to further refine the ontology.

[pfabry]

@Crispae @addiehl
The lexical matching did not find any duplicate term.

[addiehl]

Ontology version reviewed: 2024-04-05
Ontology reviewer: Alexander Diehl

To begin with, the OBO dashboard states that PBPKO is only missing one definition, whereas in reviewing the pbpko.owl file using Protege, I see that many classes are missing definitions, for instance the many classes that appear directly under entity: Falv, fSA_exposed, FSkin_e, PCAir, PCPoor, PCRich, Qair, and others. Also, many other classes at deeper levels in the hierarchy, such as Observed, Predicted, Residual error magnitude, Fcecum, Fcolon, intestinal transit time, linear elimination, and others are all undefined. I can only imagine there is some error in the OBO Dashboard code.

Ontology scope
Do the terms fall within the ontology’s stated target domain of knowledge?
Yes, based on my limited understanding of the intended domain.

Was the ontology developed for a very specific purpose or community?
The ontology was developed for the Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetics (PBPK) modeling community, a branch of systems biology research.

Terms with the new ontology prefix
Do the terms follow the OBO identifier scheme?
No, there is a slight error
The identifier scheme used currently follows this pattern:
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/pbpko/PKPBO_00328

The correct pattern that would match the OBO identifier scheme is:
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/PKPBO_00328

The identifier scheme must be fixed.

Are there terms with the same meaning available in another OBO Foundry ontology?
Yes, for instance 'Excretion' (PKPBO:00225) is defined as "Removal of a compound from the body through various routes such as urine, feces, and exhalation."
The Gene Ontology has an 'excretion' class (GO:0007588) defined as "The elimination by an organism of the waste products that arise as a result of metabolic activity. These products include water, carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrogenous compounds."
These definitions refer to the same process, and PBPKO must import the GO term.

PBPKO has 'goodness of fit' (PKPBO:00328), an undefined type of 'Statistical Method' (PKPBO:00001, also undefined).

The Ontology of Biological and Clinical Statistics has also a 'goodness of fit' (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBCS_0000030) subclass of 'inferential statistical data analysis' a type of planned process, defined as "An inferential statistical data analysis used to analyze how well a statistical model fits a set of observations; measures of goodness of fit typically summarize the discrepancy between observed values and the values expected under the model in question."

The The Statistical Methods Ontology has 'goodness of fit statistical test' (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/STATO_0000191) defined as "A goodness of fit statistical test is a statistical test which aim to evaluate if a sample distribution can be considered equivalent to a theoretical distribution used as input."

PBPKO should import their statistical test classes from an established ontology.

Is there another OBO Foundry ontology whose scope covers any of the new terms?
yes, see above for the statistical terms.

Correct use of imported terms
If the ontology reuses terms from other OBO ontologies, are they used accurately?
No, the BFO hierarchy is imported in PBPKO and ignored completely for all the PBPKO native classes, which include both continuants and occurrents.

Are imported terms in appropriate hierarchies, and do they preserve the term’s upper-level alignment?
The few GO terms that are imported are in the proper place under BFO:process.

Are any additional axioms used for these terms correct in both a technical (e.g. passes reasoning) and substantive sense?
There are no additional axioms.

Basic review of axiomatic patterns
Are axioms generally stated simply or are they highly complex? (Highly complex axioms will require extra scrutiny.)
There is no attempt at adding axioms to any PBPKO classes.

Are existential restrictions used correctly? (Typical mistakes include “R some (A and B and C)” to mean “(R some A and R some B and R some C)”).
There is no attempt at adding axioms to any PBPKO classes.

Appropriate use of object properties -
Are object properties used in a manner consistent with their definitions, domain, and range? (Examples of incorrect usage include those based on some interpretation of the label of the object property but not actually fitting the property definition or domain and range.)
There are no object properties employed.

Responsiveness to suggested changes -
Have the developers been willing to fix any identified issues during the review?
Let's see.

General Comments:
PBPKO should developed along the OBI model as it is full of assays. I recommend the developers of PBPKO study OBI and consider how best to refactor PBPKO. Also, the term names in PBPKO have insufficient face value (they should be more descriptive), and all classes should be defined.

[addiehl]

Note to OBO Foundry members: Clearly the lexical matching test is a work in progress.

[Crispae]

@addiehl Thank you for your comments. We will address the mentioned issues. If we need further assistance, we are counting on OBO Foundry.