Skip to main content

Representation of anatomy in online atlases and databases: a survey and collection of patterns for interface design

Abstract

Background

A large number of online atlases and databases have been developed to mange the rapidly growing amount of data describing embryogenesis. As these community resources continue to evolve, it is important to understand how representations of anatomy can facilitate the sharing and integration of data. In addition, attention to the design of the interfaces is critical to make online resources useful and usable.

Results

I first present a survey of online atlases and gene expression resources for model organisms, with a focus on methods of semantic and spatial representation of anatomy. A total of 14 anatomical atlases and 21 gene expression resources are included. This survey demonstrates how choices in semantic representation, in the form of ontologies, can enhance interface search functions and provide links between relevant information. This survey also reviews methods for spatially representing anatomy in online resources. I then provide a collection of patterns for interface design based on the atlases and databases surveyed. These patterns include methods for displaying graphics, integrating semantic and spatial representations, organizing information, and querying databases to find genes expressed in anatomical structures.

Conclusions

This collection of patterns for interface design will assist biologists and software developers in planning the interfaces of new atlases and databases or enhancing existing ones. They also show the benefits of standardizing semantic and spatial representations of anatomy by demonstrating how interfaces can use standardization to provide enhanced functionality.

Background

Developmental biology is a data-intensive science. During the last two decades the primary means of archiving and accessing experimental results has shifted from traditional printed publications to digital repositories and web sites [1, 2]. This transition was driven by the need to mange the rapidly growing amount of data describing embryogenesis, integrate heterogeneous data, represent this data within the context of space and time, and enable cross-species comparisons.

Development of the first digital atlas took place in the early 1990s. These authors constructed a 9-day mouse embryo in 3D using serial sections at histological resolution, with plans to later incorporate spatially-based gene expression data [3]. Since that time, many anatomical atlases and gene expression databases have been developed for a number of species, by both individual laboratories and multi-institution teams.

Development of these resources has required partnering with computer science and informatics researchers. Areas of partnership include not only designing interactive web-based tools and improving methods of image capture and analysis, but also developing standards for data integration. Efforts to standardize elements of research (such as gene nomenclature, experimental protocols, descriptions of phenotypes, and the organisms themselves) began decades before the introduction of digital repositories [4, 5]. But standards are particularly important for digital repositories because the ability of users to find information relevant to their needs—and to make sense of what they find—is determined by the quality and consistency of the data and its annotations.

The Gene Ontology (GO) is a prominent example of an effort to develop semantic standards for molecular biology. GO allows biologists to describe the role of gene products shared across eukaryotic organisms [6]. It is widely used to cluster results of large-scale differential gene expression studies into functional categories, and has an important role in representing and aiding the discovery of gene regulatory networks [7, 8].

The representation of anatomy often receives less attention than the representation of genes, but is crucial because studies of gene expression must document not only the genes studied but also the anatomical location(s) of the expression. These annotations are most useful when they represent anatomy in ways that are explicit, standardized, and can be understood by researchers without expert knowledge of the species represented.

Methods for curating information about the anatomy of model organisms have evolved in parallel with methods for disseminating experimental data. Traditional print-based atlases have long been used to document anatomy and standardize terminology for structures and developmental stages. Online atlases provide additional benefits because they (a) allow data such as high-resolution two-dimensional (2D) images, three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions, and movies to be shared, (b) can be updated frequently, and (c) can link to external resources or incorporate content maintained by other sites.

The task of representing an organism’s anatomy during development is inherently complex. As shown in Fig. 1, a complete description would account for three-dimensional structure at scales spanning gross, histological, and molecular anatomy, each throughout the time of development. Managing knowledge and data within this space-scale-time matrix presents a tremendous challenge. But it is also an opportunity to develop online atlases that not only provide anatomical descriptions, but also use anatomy as a framework for organizing and sharing data [9].

Fig. 1
figure1

The components of a complete anatomical description. A complete description of an organism’s anatomy during development would account for three-dimensional structure at scales from gross to histological to molecular anatomy, and throughout the time of development

In order to develop atlases that will successfully serve as data portals for developmental biologists, research in a number of areas is crucial. These include development of web technologies for delivering volumetric image data over the web [10] and tools to support comparing data from disparate sources within a common spatial environment [11, 12]. Work related to gene expression data includes capture of quantitative expression data [13], mapping expression data to 3D graphics [14], visualization of data across time and space [15], and automating annotation of expression patterns with anatomical terms [16]. Atlases could also provide tools to aid researchers in analysis of their own data, such as feature for more precisely describing a specimen’s stage based on interpolating between reference stages [17, 18].

Atlases serving as data portals will require tightly integrated spatial and semantic representations as users alternate between image-based and term-based navigation and data retrieval. Therefore, in addition to research rooted in the fields of computer science and informatics, expertise is also needed from the fields of interaction design (to develop intuitive interfaces and effective visualizations) and knowledge representation (to provide semantic representations to enable data integration).

As shown in Fig. 2, the type of semantic representation determines the level of meaning captured within the representation. A controlled vocabulary is a list of terms within a specific domain. A taxonomy is a controlled vocabulary with hierarchical is_a relationships. An ontology is a taxonomy with additional relationships such as has_part and develops_into. The information provided by these relationships is necessary for developing atlases that link together data across space and time.

Fig. 2
figure2

Levels of complexity in semantic representation. A controlled vocabulary is a list of defined terms. A taxonomy is a controlled vocabulary with a hierarchical structure formed by is_a relationships between pairs of terms. An ontology is a taxonomy with additional relationships, such as part_of

This article examines online resources for developmental biologists with an emphasis on semantic and spatial representation and interface design. I first survey 14 anatomical atlases and 21 gene expression resources for methods of anatomical representation. I then present a collection of patterns for interface design that demonstrate the variety of approaches used for anatomical representation, user interaction, and navigation with the atlases and databases. The purposes of this work are to (a) assist biologists and software developers in planning the interfaces of new atlases and databases or enhancing existing ones, and (b) demonstrate the benefits of standardizing semantic and spatial representations of anatomy.

Results

Anatomical atlases

For the purpose of this work, an anatomical atlas is defined as a resource that provides spatial representations of a body or region of a body, plus a set of anatomical terms which are associated with regions of the representations. I identified 14 online anatomical atlases describing organisms commonly used by developmental biologists.

Descriptions of each atlas are provided in Table 1. The six species represented (and number of atlases for each) are Caenorhabditis elegans (two), Ciona intestinalis (two), Drosophila (two), medaka (one), mouse (two), and zebrafish (four). Eight atlases have a spatial scope of the entire body, while others are limited to the brain (Drosophila, mouse), vasculature (medaka, zebrafish), midgut (Drosophila), or craniofacial skeleton (zebrafish). With the exception of one atlases for C. elegans and both Drosophila atlases, all atlases include a description of at least some developmental stages.

Table 1 Summary of anatomical atlases surveyed

Table 2 lists the types of anatomical representations used within each atlas. Types of graphics included confocal micrographs, transmission electron micrographs (TEMs), histological sections, 3D reconstructions from histological sections, 3D surface models, illustrations, and brightfield movies. Six of the atlases stated that a controlled vocabulary or ontology was used as a source of terms for anatomical structures.

Table 2 Anatomical representations within the anatomical atlas

Gene expression atlases and databases

For this work, a gene expression atlas or database is defined as a resource that combines evidence of gene expression with a representation of the anatomical region of the expression. Because this work emphasizes spatial representations, resources consisting only of microarray data were excluded. I identified 21 resources for gene expression.

Descriptions of each atlas or database for gene expression are provided in Table 3. The eight species represented (and number of resources for each) are Caenorhabditis elegans (two), chicken (one), Ciona intestinalis (one), Drosophila (four), medaka (one), mouse (eight), Xenopus (two), and zebrafish (two). The spatial scope for 18 of the resources is the entire body. Others are limited to brain, nervous system, or urogenital system (each for the mouse). All resources include at least one developmental stage.

Table 3 Summary of gene expression atlases and databases surveyed

Table 4 lists the anatomical representations used within each gene expression atlas or database. Types of graphics documenting expression patterns include brightfield micrographs showing a colorimetric assay for expression in both histological sections and whole mounts, confocal micrographs, and 3D models with the region of expression highlighted. At least eight of the resources rely primarily on submissions of data from the community, and therefore various types of graphics are presented across different database entries. All resources use anatomical terms to describe regions of expression. However, only 14 use terms from controlled vocabularies or ontologies. The other resources appear to use project-specific vocabularies.

Table 4 Anatomical representations within the gene expression atlases and databases

Semantic representation: Controlled vocabularies and ontologies

Table 5 lists the controlled vocabularies and ontologies used in the resources surveyed. This survey revealed that a total of 12 vocabularies or ontologies are used. Each includes terms relevant to adult anatomy, developmental anatomy and stages, or both. Seven organisms are represented (C. elegans, C. intestinalis, Drosophila, medaka, mouse, Xenopus, and zebrafish). As shown in Table 5 (third column, indicated with superscript), each vocabulary and ontology was developed by one of the groups creating an atlas or database included in Tables 1 and 3.

Table 5 Controlled vocabularies and ontologies relevant to this survey

Several atlases and gene expression resources demonstrate how the relationships within ontologies can contribute to the usefulness of interfaces by enhancing search functions or providing links between relevant information:

  • Part relationships: EMAGE [19] and GXD [20] are databases for gene expression in the mouse, and both have a search function that accepts a term for an anatomical structure and returns genes expressed in that structure. These databases make use of the part hierarchies in the EMAP anatomy ontology [21] and Adult Mouse Anatomy (MA) [22] to return results annotated with either the term entered by the user or the parts of that structure. For example, a search for genes expressed in “eye” will return genes annotated with “eye”, “retina”, and “lens vesicle”.

  • Developmental relationships: Searches for gene expression in an anatomical structure can be expanded by including structures linked by developmental relationships. The Xenbase gene expression database [23] provides an option to include successor and predecessor structures in search results. These relationships are provided by the Xenopus Anatomy Ontology (XAO) [24]. Developmental relationships also provide a way for users to navigate an atlas or database along developmental pathways. GUDMAP [25] is a database of gene expression in the mouse urogenital system. It employs the derives_from and differentiates_into relationships as links between the tissue summary pages with include gene expression data. This enables a user examining data annotated with “early distal tubule” to follow the differentiates_into relationship to data annotated with “renal distal tubule”.

  • Structural relationships: Structural relationships allow a resource to present knowledge specific to an anatomical context. For example, the Virtual Fly Brain [26] provides an interface that uses the has_presynaptic_terminal_in and has_postsynaptic_terminal_in relationships for nerves in the Drosophila Anatomy Ontology [27]. For example, when viewing the medulla in the atlas, lists are generated for neurons with presynaptic and postsynaptic terminals the medulla. Producing the list of neurons requires two types of knowledge from the ontology: (a) which anatomical structures are part_of the medulla, (b) each neuron that has_presynaptic_terminal_in or has_postsynaptic_terminal_in those parts.

Ontologies also provide an opportunity to link resources to each other. For example, each anatomical term in the Zebrafish Anatomy Portal (ZFAP) [28] is linked to a page in ZFIN [29] that defines the term and provides ontological relationships.

Spatial representation: 2D and 3D graphics

The atlases and databases in this survey demonstrate several ways that spatial representation of anatomy can be enhanced in a web-based resource:

  • Graphics of developmental stages: The process of development can be studied only if it is represented in ways that are sufficiently rich in detail and reasonably standardized — a challenge as old as embryology itself [30]. Web-based atlases are able to represent spatial structure and time-based processes in way that traditional print-based resources cannot. For example, the Four-dimensional Ascidian Body Atlas (FABA) [31] defines stages for C. intestinalis with confocal image stacks and time-lapse movies, and the e-Mouse Atlas provides 3D reconstructions of embryos for many Theiler stages. Standardization of annotation for developmental stages is necessary for sharing data among laboratories, and atlases provide an easy way to access stage descriptions.

  • High-resolution histological sections: Glass histology slides have long been used for studying histology. Virtual slides are created by scanning and digitizing glass slides, and the experience of using a microscope is simulated through web applications that allow zooming and panning of the image. Virtual slides are provided by the Zebrafish Atlas [32] and e-Mouse Atlas [33].

  • Visual representation of ontological terms: Web-based resources provide an environment in which to link semantic and spatial representations of anatomical structures. For example, the Allen Developing Mouse Brain Atlas [34] and the Virtual Fly Brain [26] provide linked term-and-graphic windows that provide a view of both the ontology used and structures annotated with those terms. The Zebrafish Anatomy Portal (ZFAP) [28] provides a search function that takes a term from the Zebrafish Anatomy Ontology and returns planes of reconstructions from optical projection tomography (OPT) scans labeled with the term.

  • Correlating spatial data among specimens and experiments: For gene expression patterns to be useful, they must be annotated in a way that allows users to find genes that are expressed in regions of interest and to study co-expression patterns. Four methods are used to annotate expression patterns within the resources surveyed: (a) The first method is manual annotation of each specimen using terms from a controlled vocabulary or ontology. This method enables only text-based queries, and will be inaccurate where expression patterns do not correspond to the borders of defined anatomical regions. (b) The second approach relies on computational annotation and preserves the spatial nature of the data. In this approach, the expression pattern of each specimen is registered to a stage-matched standard volume through spatial warping enabling spatial queries to be performed across the dataset. This is used by the e-Mouse Atlas of Gene Expression (EMAGE) [19] (as described in [35]) and Allen Developing Mouse Brain Atlas [34] (as described in [36]). (c) A third approach, used by XenMARK [37], relies on a manual annotation process in which specimen expression patterns are drawn onto stage-specific schematic diagrams [38]. This method avoids the computational complexity of spatial warping, but allows spatial searches from the schematics. (d) A fourth approach is to compute similarity scores between pairs of images, instead of mapping to a stage-specific standard. This method is used by FlyExpress [39] on sets of 2D images of Drosophila embryos that are uniformly oriented and assayed under the same conditions [40].

Patterns for interface design

In order to document and generalize the approaches for conveying information about anatomy that are used in these atlas and databases, I compiled a set of patterns. Patterns are reusable solutions to design problems, and are of great interest in interface design [41]. The patterns I have identified focus on graphic representation, user interaction, and navigation.

From the anatomical atlases I identified a total of 23 design patterns, shown in Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6. These patterns provide methods for displaying graphics, integrating semantic and spatial representations, and organizing atlas information. They are grouped into eight categories:

Fig. 3
figure3

Interface design patterns for displaying 2D graphics and sectional graphics

Fig. 4
figure4

Interface design patterns for displaying 3D graphics and labeling graphics

Fig. 5
figure5

Interface design patterns for presenting topic-focused information and defining anatomical terms

Fig. 6
figure6

Interface design patterns for organizing information about developmental stages and describing development using graphical methods

  • Displaying 2D graphics

  • Displaying sectional graphics

  • Displaying 3D graphics

  • Labeling graphics

  • Presenting topic-focused information

  • Defining anatomical terms

  • Organizing information about developmental stages

  • Describing development using graphical methods

Each pattern has a title, description, examples of use, and simple pictorial representation. For example, one pattern in the category of “Displaying 2D graphics” is “Overview plus detail.” This pattern pairs a small overview graphic with a large zoomable graphic. A box on the small graphic indicates the region shown in the zoomable graphic. This pattern can be used when high-resolutions graphics are available and it is important to allow the user to zoom into details. This pattern is used within the e-Mouse Atlas [33], Virtual Fly Brain [26], WormAtlas (SlidableWorm) [42], and Zebrafish Atlas [32].

From the gene expression atlases and databases I identified 13 patterns that provide methods for querying databases to find genes expressed in anatomical structures and display the results. These patterns are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, and are grouped into four categories:

Fig. 7
figure7

Interface design patterns for textual and graphical methods of querying a gene expression database

Fig. 8
figure8

Interface design patterns for displaying query results from a gene expression database and explaining anatomical annotations

  • Providing textual methods for querying a gene expression database

  • Providing graphical methods for querying a gene expression database

  • Displaying query results from a gene expression database

  • Explaining anatomical annotations in a query result item

A few of the patterns that I present here have been previously identified in other pattern collections. In these cases I have retained the names given by previous authors (for example, “Overview plus detail”, “Autocompletion”, and “Thumbnail grid“) [41].

Discussion

This collection of design patterns can be used as a catalyst for conversations between biologists and software developers. Because they provide a user-focused perspective, they can support discussions of methods for exploring and retrieving anatomically-based information and can serve as building blocks for interface specifications.

The patterns also help to clarify how interface functionality is constrained by the investment in semantic and spatial standardization. For example, one of the most intuitive ways to query a gene expression pattern database is by specifying a point or region on a standardized image, but this requires that the expression data have been mapped to a spatial standard.

This work documents the variety of ways anatomical information has been communicated in online atlases and databases. Part of this variability is due to differences in the types of data available, purposes of the resources, and the characteristics of the organism. But it also reflects the large number of design solutions that are possible. Because this survey did not include resources presented as downloadable software, there are likely to be additional patterns for representing anatomy.

Using the patterns to support user needs

When applied to developing or expanding a particular online resource, this work should be considered in the context of two important considerations: “What are the information needs of the users?” and “What information assets are available to use in building the resource?” The patterns act as intermediaries between the users’ questions and the information assets. Figure 9 provides a scenario that uses ten of the patterns in an imagined resource. This resource provides an anatomical atlas and gene expression database, and uses information assets including an ontology (serving as the semantic standard), spatial standards, a graphics collection, and gene expression data. In this scenario, user needs include obtaining information about the meaning of anatomical terms and finding data related to development of a particular anatomical structure.

Fig. 9
figure9

Scenario for an online resource combining an anatomical atlas with gene expression data. Questions by users (in thought clouds) serve as entry points to pages using the design patterns. Arrows represent links between pages using different patterns. Four types of information assets (an ontology, spatial standards, graphics collection, and gene expression data) are shown in the center. Lines extending from the information assets indicate some of the patterns that incorporate those assets

Designing for new types of data

Looking to the future, standardized spatial representations will be key to communicating and integrating new types of data. Emerging techniques for “spatially resolved omics” [43] provide high-throughput measurements of gene expressions while preserving detailed spatial information. For example, microtomy sequencing provides gene expression data from individual cryosections of a specimen. Recent work with zebrafish embryos extends this approach by analyzing data from embryos sectioned along orthogonal body axes using image reconstruction algorithms to produce 3D expression patterns—a technique called RNA tomography (or tomo-seq) [44].

The detailed spatial data produced by large-scale gene expression studies are unlikely to correspond to traditionally defined regions of anatomy. Therefore, standardized spatial representations of model organisms will need to serve as a mediator between the data collected by laboratories and the users of community databases. In this scenario, investigators will not annotate their data with semantic annotations. Rather, they will map their data to standard spatial representations. The role of semantic representations will be to serve as references to regions of the models and logical links between models at different stages or at different spatial scales. This will integrate disparate data at the level of spatial representation, while preserving the usefulness of semantic representations for filtering, searching, and browsing data.

Conclusions

This work highlights issues important for the continued evolution of online resources for developmental biology. If resources are to be effective in helping researchers to locate data relevant to their questions and to generate hypotheses, they must provide a structure that allows researchers to navigate within the space-scale-time matrix depicted in Fig. 1, as well as to explore homologous structures across different species. This next generation of resources—perhaps better described as web portals—will provide access to not only information from different laboratories stored within a single repository, but to information distributed across different repositories. These web portals (and perhaps networks of interlinked web portals) will rely on tightly integrated semantic and spatial representation, using anatomy as a framework for data integration, organization and navigation.

As model organism communities move toward the goal of building a comprehensive understanding of development, the role of these web portals is crucial. They will serve both to document collective knowledge from previous work and to provide the infrastructure that enables future work. Achieving this vision will require not only advances in web and imaging technology, but careful consideration of semantic and spatial representation and research to design usable and intuitive interfaces. In order for these tools to meet the needs of biologists, biologists must partner with computer science, informatics, and design researchers.

Methods

The atlases and databases surveyed in this work were identified through keyword searches of the Science Direct, Scopus, and PubMed databases. The keywords used were atlas or database in combination with Arbacia, Caenorhabditis elegans, chick, chicken, Ciona, Danio rerio, Drosophila, fly, frog, Gallus gallus, medaka, mouse, Mus musculus, nematode, Oryzias latipes, rat, Rattus norvegicus, sea squirt, sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus, Xenopus, or zebrafish. Several additional atlases and databases were identified based on URL links within these resources. Keyword searches were performed on 26 July 2014 and 9 Oct 2015.

Resources included in this survey are (a) described in a peer-reviewed journal article, (b) publicly available, (c) delivered on the web without requiring download, and (d) in English. In addition, a resource must have been available on at least one of the dates of testing (26 July 2014, 4 Aug 2014, 6 Sept 2014, and 9 Oct 2015). If a resources consists of both online material and downloadable material, only the online material was included in this survey. Two resources became unavailable during the course of this project (EMBRYS and GEMS). These are included in the survey, but their unavailability is noted with their URLs in Table 3.

Resources were excluded if they are primarily (a) databases of microarray data, (b) collections of figures from journal articles, (c) collections of graphics or movies with little or no annotation of anatomical structures, or (d) textbook-like resources with limited navigation structure. This work is limited to model organisms, and therefore resources for human anatomy and development are excluded.

All resources were viewed using operating system Mac OSX 10.9.5 with Java 1.8.0 and the Firefox 41.0 browser. Components provided as self-signed Java applications were excluded from this survey due to security risks.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

This study did not generate datasets.

Abbreviations

2D:

two dimensional

3D:

three dimensional

DIC:

differential inference contrast

OPT:

optical projection tomography

ssTEM:

serial section transmission electron micrograph

TEM:

transmission electron micrograph

References

  1. 1.

    de Boer BA, Ruijter JM, Voorbraak FPJM, Moorman AFM. More than a decade of developmental gene expression atlases: where are we now? Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:7349–59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Geffers L, Herrmann B, Eichele G. Web-based digital gene expression atlases for the mouse. Mamm Genome. 2012;23:525–38.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Baldock R, Bard J, Kaufman M, Davidson D. What’s New? A real mouse for your computer. Bioessays. 1992;14:501–2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bult CJ. Data integration standards in model organisms: from genotype to phenotype in the laboratory mouse. TARGETS. 2002;1:163–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Leonilli S, Ankeny RA. Re-thinking organisms: the impact of databases on model organism biology. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci. 2012;43:29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry M, et al. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25–9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hill DP, Berardini TZ, Howe DG, Van Auken KM. Representing ontogeny through ontology: a developmental biologist’s guide to the gene ontology. Mol Reprod Dev. 2010;77:314–29.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Lee W-P, Tzou W-S. Computational methods for discovering gene networks from expression data. Brief Bioinform. 2009;10:408–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Boline J. Digital atlases as a framework for data sharing. Front Neurosci. 2008;2:100–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Husz ZL, Burton N, Hill B, Milyaev N, Baldock RA. Web tools for large-scale 3D biological images and atlases. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13:122.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lee D, Ruffins S, Ng Q, Sane N, Anderson S, Toga A. MBAT: a scalable informatics system for unifying digital atlasing workflows. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:608.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bakker R, Tiesinga P, Kötter R. The Scalable Brain Atlas: instant web-based access to public brain atlases and related content. Neuroinformatics. 2015;13:353–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Fowlkes CC, Hendriks CLL, Keränen SVE, Weber GH, Rübel O, Huang M-Y, et al. A quantitative spatiotemporal atlas of gene expression in the Drosophila blastoderm. Cell. 2008;133:364–74.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lee E-F, Boline J, Toga AW. A high-resolution anatomical framework of the neonatal mouse brain for managing gene expression data. Front Neuroinform. 2007;1:6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Meyer M, Munzner T, DePace A, Pfister H. MulteeSum: a tool for comparative spatial and temporal gene expression data. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2010;16:908–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Han L, van Hemert JI, Baldock RA. Automatically identifying and annotating mouse embryo gene expression patterns. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1101–7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Boehm B, Rautschka M, Quintana L, Raspopovic J, Jan Z, Sharpe J. A landmark-free morphometric staging system for the mouse limb bud. Development. 2011;138:1227–34.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Wong M, van Eede MC, Spring S, Jevtic S, Boughner JC, Lerch JP, et al. 4D atlas of the mouse embryo for precise morphological staging. Development. 2015;142:3583–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    EMAGE. http://www.emouseatlas.org/emage/home.php. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  20. 20.

    Jackson Laboratory. Mouse Gene Expression Database. http://www.informatics.jax.org/gxd. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  21. 21.

    Hayamizu TF, Wicks MN, Davidson DR, Burger A, Ringwald M, Baldock RA. EMAP/EMAPA ontology of mouse developmental anatomy: 2013 update. J Biomed Semantics. 2013;4:15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hayamizu TF, Mangan M, Corradi JP, Kadin JA, Ringwald M. The Adult Mouse Anatomical Dictionary: a tool for annotating and integrating data. Genome Biol. 2005;6:R:29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Xenbase. http://www.xenbase.org/entry. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  24. 24.

    Segerdell E, Ponferrada VG, James-Zorn C, Burns KA, Fortriede JD, Dahdul WM, et al. Enhanced XAO: the ontology of Xenopus anatomy and development underpins more accurate annotation of gene expression and queries on Xenbase. J Biomed Semantics. 2013;4:31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    GUDMAP Consortium. GUDMAP: Genitourinary Development Molecular Anatomy Project. http://www.gudmap.org. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  26. 26.

    Armstrong D, Milyaev N, Osumi-Sutherland D, Reeve S, Costa M, O’Kane C, et al. Virtual Fly Brain. http://www.virtualflybrain.org. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  27. 27.

    Costa M, Reeve S, Grumbling G, Osumi-Sutherland D. The Drosophila anatomy ontology. J Biomed Semantics. 2013;4:32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Salgado D, Currie P, Marcelle C, Bryson-Richardons R. ZebraFish Anatomy Portal (ZFAP). http://zebrafish.anatomyportal.org. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  29. 29.

    ZFIN: The Zebrafish Model Organism Database. http://zfin.org. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  30. 30.

    Hopwood N. A history of normal plates, tables and stages in vertebrate embryology. Int J Dev Biol. 2007;51:1–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    FABA: Four-dimensional Ascidian Body Atlas. http://tunicate-portal.org/faba/1.4/top.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  32. 32.

    Jake Gittlen Cancer Research Foundation. Zebrafish Atlas. http://bio-atlas.psu.edu/zf. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  33. 33.

    EMAP: The e-Mouse Atlas Project. http://www.emouseatlas.org/emap/home.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  34. 34.

    Allen Institute for Brain Science. Allen Developing Mouse Brain Atlas. http://developingmouse.brain-map.org. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  35. 35.

    Hill B, Baldock RA. Constrained distance transforms for spatial atlas registration. BMC Bioinformatics. 2015;16:90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Lein ES, Hawrylycz MJ, Ao N, Ayres M, Bensinger A, Bernard A, et al. Genome-wide atlas of gene expression in the adult mouse brain. Nature. 2007;445:168–76.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    XenMARK. http://genomics.crick.ac.uk/apps/XenMARK. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  38. 38.

    Gilchrist MJ, Christensen MB, Bronchain O, Brunet F, Chesneau A, Fenger U, et al. Database of queryable gene expression patterns for Xenopus. Dev Dyn. 2009;238:1379–88.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    FlyExpress. http://www.flyexpress.net. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  40. 40.

    Konikoff CE, Karr TL, McCutchan M, Newfeld SJ, Kumar S. Comparison of embryonic expression within multigene families using the FlyExpress discovery platform reveals more spatial than temporal divergence. Dev Dyn. 2012;241:150–60.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Tidwell J. Designing interfaces. second edition. O’Reilly Media; 2011.

  42. 42.

    Altun ZF, Herndon LA, Crocker C, Lints R, Hall DH. WormAtlas. http://wormatlas.org. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  43. 43.

    Crosetto N, Bienko M, van Oudenaarden A. Spatially resolved transcriptomics and beyond. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;16:57–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Junker JP, Noël ES, Guryev V, Peterson KA, Shah G, Huisken J, et al. Genome-wide RNA tomography in the zebrafish embryo. Cell. 2014;159:662–75.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    The SG, Worm T. C. elegans, Worm Atlas, Worm Image and the Slidable Worm: from the webpage to the classroom. Microsc Microanal. 2007;13:208–9.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Yook K, Harris TW, Bieri T, Cabunoc A, Chan J, Chen WJ, et al. WormBase 2012: more genomes, more data, new website. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:D735–41.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Brozovic M, Martin C, Dantec C, Dauga D, Mendez M, Simion P, et al. ANISEED 2015: a digital framework for the comparative developmental biology of ascidians. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D808–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Tassy O, Dauga D, Daian F, Sobral D, Robin F, Khoueiry P, et al. The ANISEED database: digital representation, formalization, and elucidation of a chordate developmental program. Genome Res. 2010;20:1459–68.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Hotta K, Mitsuhara K, Takahashi H, Inaba K, Oka K, Gojobori T, et al. A web-based interactive developmental table for the ascidian Ciona intestinalis, including 3D real-image embryo reconstructions: I. From fertilized egg to hatching larva. Dev Dyn. 2007;236:1790–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Buchon N, Osman D, David FPA, Yu Fang H, Boquete J-P, Deplancke B, et al. Morphological and molecular characterization of adult midgut compartmentalization in Drosophila. Cell Rep. 2013;3:1725–38.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Milyaev N, Osumi-Sutherland D, Reeve S, Burton N, Baldock RA, Armstrong JD. The Virtual Fly Brain browser and query interface. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:411–5.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Isogai S, Fujita M. Anatomical atlas of blood vascular system of medaka. In: Naruse K, Tanaka M, Takeda H, editors. Medaka: A model organism for organogenesis, human disease, and evolution. Tokyo: Springer Japan; 2011. p. 95–109.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Fujita M, Isogai S, Kudo A. Vascular anatomy of the developing medaka, Oryzias latipes: a complementary fish model for cardiovascular research on vertebrates. Dev Dyn. 2006;235:734–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Sunkin SM, Ng L, Lau C, Dolbeare T, Gilbert TL, Thompson CL, et al. Allen Brain Atlas: an integrated spatio-temporal portal for exploring the central nervous system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D996–1008.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Allen Institute for Brain Science. Technical white paper: Reference atlases for the Allen Developing Mouse Brain Atlas. 2010. http://developingmouse.brain-map.org/docs/ReferenceAtlas.pdf

  56. 56.

    Armit C, Richardson L, Hill B, Yang Y, Baldock RA. eMouseAtlas informatics: embryo atlas and gene expression database. Mamm Genome. 2015;26:431–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Richardson L, Graham L, Moss J, Burton N, Roochun Y, Armit C, et al. Developing the eHistology Atlas. Database. 2015;2015:bav105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Armit C, Venkataraman S, Richardson L, Stevenson P, Moss J, Graham L, et al. eMouseAtlas, EMAGE, and the spatial dimension of the transcriptome. Mamm Genome. 2012;23:514–24.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Baldock RA, Bard JBL, Burger A, Burton N, Christiansen J, Feng G, et al. EMAP and EMAGE: a framework for understanding spatially organized data. Neuroinformatics. 2003;1:309–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Davidson D, Bard J, Kaufman M, Baldock R. The Mouse Atlas Database: a community resource for mouse development. Trends Genet. 2001;17:49–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Baldock RA, Dubreuil C, Hill B, Davidson D. The Edinburgh Mouse Atlas: basic structure and informatics. In: Letovsky S, editor. Bioinformatics: Databases and Systems. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Eames B, DeLaurier A, Ullmann B, Huycke TR, Nichols JT, Dowd J, et al. FishFace: interactive atlas of zebrafish craniofacial development at cellular resolution. BMC Dev Biol. 2013;13:23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Bryson-Richardson RJ, Berger S, Schilling TF, Hall TE, Cole NJ, Gibson AJ, et al. FishNet: an online database of zebrafish anatomy. BMC Biol. 2007;5:34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Isogai S, Horiguchi M, Weinstein BM. The vascular anatomy of the developing zebrafish: an atlas of embryonic and early larval development. Dev Biol. 2001;230:278–301.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Salgado D, Marcelle C, Currie PD, Bryson-Richardson RJ. The Zebrafish Anatomy Portal: a novel integrated resource to facilitate zebrafish research. Dev Biol. 2012;372:1–4.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Cheng KC. A life-span atlas for the zebrafish. Zebrafish. 2004;1:69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Cubbage CC, Mabee PM. Development of the cranium and paired fins in the zebrafish Danio rerio (Ostariophysi, Cyprinidae). J Morphol. 1996;229:121–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Ito K, Shinomiya K, Ito M, Armstrong JD, Boyan G, Hartenstein V, et al. A systematic nomenclature for the insect brain. Neuron. 2014;81:755–65.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Hunt-Newbury R, Viveiros R, Johnsen R, Mah A, Anastas D, Fang L, et al. High-throughput in vivo analysis of gene expression in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Biol. 2007;5:e237.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Harris TW, Baran J, Bieri T, Cabunoc A, Chan J, Chen WJ, et al. WormBase 2014: new views of curated biology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D789–93.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Antin PB, Yatskievych TA, Davey S, Darnell DK. GEISHA: an evolving gene expression resource for the chicken embryo. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D933–7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Darnell DK, Kaur S, Stanislaw S, Davey S, Konieczka JH, Yatskievych TA, et al. GEISHA: an in situ hybridization gene expression resource for the chicken embryo. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2007;117:30–5.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Bell GW, Yatskievych TA, Antin PB. GEISHA, a whole-mount in situ hybridization gene expression screen in chicken embryos. Dev Dyn. 2004;229:677–87.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Hammonds AS, Bristow CA, Fisher WW, Weiszmann R, Wu S, Hartenstein V, et al. Spatial expression of transcription factors in Drosophila embryonic organ development. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R140.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Tomancak P, Berman BP, Beaton A, Weiszmann R, Kwan E, Hartenstein V, et al. Global analysis of patterns of gene expression during Drosophila embryogenesis. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R145.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Tomancak P, Beaton A, Weiszmann R, Kwan E, Shu S, Lewis SE, et al. Systematic determination of patterns of gene expression during Drosophila embryogenesis. Genome Biol. 2002;3:research0088.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    St. Pierre SE, Ponting L, Stefancsik R, McQuilton P, the FlyBase Consortium. FlyBase 102: advanced approaches to interrogating FlyBase. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D780–8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    McQuilton P. St. Pierre SE, Thurmond J, the FlyBase Consortium. FlyBase 101: the basics of navigating FlyBase. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:D706–14.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Grumbling G, Strelets V. The FlyBase Consortium. FlyBase: anatomical data, images and queries. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:D484–8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Kumar S, Konikoff C, Van Emden B, Busick C, Davis KT, Ji S, et al. FlyExpress: visual mining of spatiotemporal patterns for genes and publications in Drosophila embryogenesis. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:3319–20.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Lécuyer E, Yoshida H, Parthasarathy N, Alm C, Babak T, Cerovina T, et al. Global analysis of mRNA localization reveals a prominent role in organizing cellular architecture and function. Cell. 2007;131:174–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Alonso-Barba JI, Rahman R-U, Wittbrodt J, Mateo JL. MEPD: medaka expression pattern database, genes and more. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;44:D819–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Henrich T, Ramialison M, Wittbrodt B, Assouline B, Bourrat F, Berger A, et al. MEPD: a resource for medaka gene expression patterns. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:3195–7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Henrich T. MEPD: a medaka gene expression pattern database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31:72–4.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Thompson CL, Ng L, Menon V, Martinez S, Lee C-K, Glattfelder K, et al. A high-resolution spatiotemporal atlas of gene expression of the developing mouse brain. Neuron. 2014;83:309–23.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Allen Institute for Brain Science. Technical white paper: Allen Developing Mouse Brain Atlas, informatics data processing. 2013. http://help.brain-map.org/download/attachments/4325389/DevMouse_InformaticsDataProcessing.pdf.

  87. 87.

    Allen Institute for Brain Science. Technical white paper: Allen Developing Mouse Brain Atlas. 2010. http://developingmouse.brain-map.org/docs/Overview.pdf

  88. 88.

    Shimizu H, Kubo A, Uchibe K, Hashimoto M, Yokoyama S, Takada S, et al. The AERO System: a 3D-like approach for recording gene expression patterns in the whole mouse embryo. PLoS One. 2013;8:e75754. Desseyn J-L, editor.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Yokoyama S, Ito Y, Ueno-Kudoh H, Shimizu H, Uchibe K, Albini S, et al. A systems approach reveals that the myogenesis genome network is regulated by the transcriptional repressor RP58. Dev Cell. 2009;17:836–48.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Richardson L, Venkataraman S, Stevenson P, Yang Y, Moss J, Graham L, et al. EMAGE mouse embryo spatial gene expression database: 2014 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D835–44.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Richardson L, Stevenson P, Venkataraman S, Yang Y, Burton N, Rao J, et al. EMAGE: Electronic Mouse Atlas of Gene Expression. In: Lewandoski M, editor. Mouse Molecular Embryology. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2014. p. 61–79.

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Richardson L, Venkataraman S, Stevenson P, Yang Y, Burton N, Rao J, et al. EMAGE mouse embryo spatial gene expression database: 2010 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:D703–9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Christiansen JH. EMAGE: A spatial database of gene expression patterns during mouse embryo development. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:D637–41.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Diez-Roux G, Banfi S, Sultan M, Geffers L, Anand S, Rozado D, et al. A high-resolution anatomical atlas of the transcriptome in the mouse embryo. PLoS Biol. 2011;9:e1000582. Barsh GS, editor.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Smith CM, Finger JH, Hayamizu TF, McCright IJ, Xu J, Berghout J, et al. The mouse Gene Expression Database (GXD): 2014 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D818–24.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Smith CM, Finger JH, Kadin JA, Richardson JE, Ringwald M. The gene expression database for mouse development (GXD): Putting developmental expression information at your fingertips: GXD: the Mouse Gene Expression Database. Dev Dyn. 2014;243:1176–86.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Finger JH, Smith CM, Hayamizu TF, McCright IJ, Eppig JT, Kadin JA, et al. The mouse Gene Expression Database (GXD): 2011 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:D835–41.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Smith CM, Finger JH, Hayamizu TF, McCright IJ, Eppig JT, Kadin JA, et al. The mouse Gene Expression Database (GXD): 2007 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:D618–23.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Schmidt EF, Kus L, Gong S, Heintz N. BAC Transgenic Mice and the GENSAT Database of Engineered Mouse Strains. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2013;2013:pdb.top073692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Heintz N. Gene Expression Nervous System Atlas (GENSAT). Nat Neurosci. 2004;7:483.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Visel A, Thaller C, Eichele G. GenePaint.org: an atlas of gene expression patterns in the mouse embryo. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:552D–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Davies JA, Little MH, Aronow B, Armstrong J, Brennan J, Lloyd-MacGilp S, et al. Access and use of the GUDMAP database of genitourinary development. In: Michos O, editor. Kidney Development. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2012. p. 185–201.

    Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Harding SD, Armit C, Armstrong J, Brennan J, Cheng Y, Haggarty B, et al. The GUDMAP database: an online resource for genitourinary research. Development. 2011;138:2845–53.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    McMahon AP, Aronow BJ, Davidson DR, Davies JA, Gaido KW, Grimmond S, et al. GUDMAP: the Genitourinary Developmental Molecular Anatomy Project. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19:667–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    James-Zorn C, Ponferrada VG, Jarabek CJ, Burns KA, Segerdell EJ, Lee J, et al. Xenbase: expansion and updates of the Xenopus model organism database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D865–70.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Bowes JB, Snyder KA, Segerdell E, Gibb R, Jarabek C, Noumen E, et al. Xenbase: a Xenopus biology and genomics resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:D761–7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Belmamoune M, Verbeek FJ. Data integration for spatio-temporal patterns of gene expression of zebrafish development: the GEMS database. J Integr Bioinform. 2008;5(2):92.

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Howe DG, Bradford YM, Conlin T, Eagle AE, Fashena D, Frazer K, et al. ZFIN, the Zebrafish Model Organism Database: increased support for mutants and transgenics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D854–60.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Bradford Y, Conlin T, Dunn N, Fashena D, Frazer K, Howe DG, et al. ZFIN: enhancements and updates to the zebrafish model organism database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:D822–9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Sprague J, Bayraktaroglu L, Bradford Y, Conlin T, Dunn N, Fashena D, et al. The Zebrafish Information Network: the zebrafish model organism database provides expanded support for genotypes and phenotypes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;36:D768–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Lee RYN, Sternberg PW. Building a cell and anatomy ontology of Caenorhabditis elegans. Comp Funct Genomics. 2003;4:121–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Osumi-Sutherland D, Reeve S, Mungall CJ, Neuhaus F, Ruttenberg A, Jefferis GSXE, et al. A strategy for building neuroanatomy ontologies. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:1262–9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Burger A, Davidson D, Baldock R. Formalization of mouse embryo anatomy. Bioinformatics. 2004;20:259–67.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Little MH, Brennan J, Georgas K, Davies JA, Davidson DR, Baldock RA, et al. A high-resolution anatomical ontology of the developing murine genitourinary tract. Gene Expr Patterns. 2007;7:680–99.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Segerdell E, Bowes JB, Pollet N, Vize PD. An ontology for Xenopus anatomy and development. BMC Dev Biol. 2008;8:92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Belmamoune M, Verbeek FJ. Developmental Anatomy Ontology of Zebrafish: an integrative semantic framework. J Integr Bioinform. 2007;4:65.

    Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Van Slyke CE, Bradford YM, Westerfield M, Haendel MA. The zebrafish anatomy and stage ontologies: representing the anatomy and development of Danio rerio. J Biomed Semantics. 2014;5:12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The author received no funding for this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa D. Clarkson.

Additional information

Competing interests

The author declares she has no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All work was performed by M.C.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clarkson, M.D. Representation of anatomy in online atlases and databases: a survey and collection of patterns for interface design. BMC Dev Biol 16, 18 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12861-016-0116-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Atlas
  • Database
  • Interface
  • Ontology
  • Anatomy