Lena Strömbäck1, Patrick Lambrix. 1. Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköpings universitet, S-581 83 Linköping, Sweden. lestr@ida.liu.se
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Analysis and simulation of pathway data is of high importance in bioinformatics. Standards for representation of information about pathways are necessary for integration and analysis of data from various sources. Recently, a number of representation formats for pathway data, SBML, PSI MI and BioPAX, have been proposed. RESULTS: In this paper we compare these formats and evaluate them with respect to their underlying models, information content and possibilities for easy creation of tools. The evaluation shows that the main structure of the formats is similar. However, SBML is tuned towards simulation models of molecular pathways while PSI MI is more suitable for representing details about particular interactions and experiments. BioPAX is the most general and expressive of the formats. These differences are apparent in allowed information and the structure for representation of interactions. We discuss the impact of these differences both with respect to information content in existing databases and computational properties for import and analysis of data.
MOTIVATION: Analysis and simulation of pathway data is of high importance in bioinformatics. Standards for representation of information about pathways are necessary for integration and analysis of data from various sources. Recently, a number of representation formats for pathway data, SBML, PSI MI and BioPAX, have been proposed. RESULTS: In this paper we compare these formats and evaluate them with respect to their underlying models, information content and possibilities for easy creation of tools. The evaluation shows that the main structure of the formats is similar. However, SBML is tuned towards simulation models of molecular pathways while PSI MI is more suitable for representing details about particular interactions and experiments. BioPAX is the most general and expressive of the formats. These differences are apparent in allowed information and the structure for representation of interactions. We discuss the impact of these differences both with respect to information content in existing databases and computational properties for import and analysis of data.
Authors: Oliver Ruebenacker; Ion I Moraru; James C Schaff; Michael L Blinov Journal: Proceedings (IEEE Int Conf Bioinformatics Biomed) Date: 2007-11-02
Authors: Marco Mesiti; Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz; Ismael Sanz; Rafael Berlanga-Llavori; Paolo Perlasca; Giorgio Valentini; David Manset Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Alex Frolkis; Craig Knox; Emilia Lim; Timothy Jewison; Vivian Law; David D Hau; Phillip Liu; Bijaya Gautam; Son Ly; An Chi Guo; Jianguo Xia; Yongjie Liang; Savita Shrivastava; David S Wishart Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2009-11-30 Impact factor: 16.971