shin

Exploitation of Structural Similarity in Semi-Structured Bioinformatics Data for Efficient Storage Construction: 

Exploitation of Structural Similarity in Semi-Structured Bioinformatics Data for Efficient Storage Construction Dongkyoo Shin (shindk@sejong.ac.kr) Sejong University, InCob2007

Table of contents: 

Table of contents Abstract Background Methods Results Conclusions

Abstract (1): 

Abstract (1) Background Many researches related to storing XML data Reduce the number of joins between tables Not proper to microarray data with distinctive hierarchy Hierarchical feature of microarray data model a few core values occurs iteratively New approach for capturing the feature Class elements with similar structure into a group Design common database table for the group

Abstract (2): 

Abstract (2) Results Database schema created by our approach Reduce the number of table joins remarkably Improve performance of storing and loading XML-based microarray data Conclusions Efficient way to improve performance of microarray data is mining structural similarity of elements

Background (1): 

Background (1) DTD (Data Type Definition)-dependent base Map one element into one table For each e  E, #(S) ≥1 OR #(A) ≥1 -> define_Class(e) For each Se  S -> Add_attributes_of_Class(e) Se  SequenceType -> Define_multivalued_att(Se, e)

Background (2): 

Background (2) Inline technique base Reduce the complexity of DTD (Data Type Definition) For each e, #(S) == 1 AND Se  SequenceType -> Add_Multi-valued_attribute_of_Paren-tClass(e)

Background (3): 

Background (3) Drawback of previous approaches DTD-dependent Database schema has the same complexity with DTD Inline technique Strongly depend on the number of omissible elements New design approach for microarray database Capture similar structural features of microarray data Need fast and simple way to mine the structural features

Background (5): 

Background (5) Microarray data and MAGE (Microarray Gene Expression) standards Research groups share microarray data with others, and use it to solve their biological questions MGED society’s standard definitions MIAME (Minimum Information for the Annotation of a Microarray Experiment) MAGE-OM and MAGE-ML Exchange object model and format for MIAME Structural feature of MAGE-OM a variety set of objects defining the same data types including complex types.

Background (6): 

Background (6) Decision Tree a simple model for easy understanding classification rules correlations, and effects between variables Proper for mining structural features of MAGE-ML DTD itself (Not MAGE-ML instances !!!) Possible to classify all elements three levels: A root, mediators group, and bottoms group

Methods (1): 

Methods (1) Classification of core features using decision tree Terminologies for expression of a complexType e: an element defined in XML schema E: an elements set of e SE: a sub-elements set of e a: an attribute of e A: an attributes set of e SA: an attributes set for all sub-elements of e complexType: Structural information that consists of SE and (or) A of e. Lowest child: an element without a sub-element Lowest parent: an element with a sub-element that is one of the lowest child elements PG (Parent Group): a set of candidate elements to be parents of a Lowest Child LPCG (The Lowest Parent Candidate Group): a set of candidates to be Lowest Parent LCG (The Lowest Child Group): a set of Lowest child elements LPG (The Lowest Parent Group): a set of Lowest Parent elements ULPG (Upper Level Parent Group): a set of upper level parents, including elements that are neither Lowest Child nor Lowest Parent

Methods (2): 

Methods (2) Expression of a complexType A complexType defines structural information of elements A set of arrays including data type Definition of structural similarity SEelex = {e1, e2, … , en}, SAelex = {Ae1, Ae2, … , Aen} complexType(elex) = {SEelex, SAelex} complexType(elex) == complexType(eley)

Methods (3): 

Methods (3) Decision Tree for recognizing the core features Condition 1: If rule 1 is satisfied, then e arrives at LCG. Otherwise, it arrives at PG. Condition 2: If rule 2 is satisfied, then e and its similar element e arrive at a new LCG. Condition 3: If rule 3 is satisfied, then e arrives at LPG. Otherwise, it arrives at ULPG. Condition 4: If rule 4 is satisfied, then e and elements similar to e arrive at a new LPG.

Methods (4): 

Methods (4) Classification rules Rule 1 Decide that an element should belong to group LCG or PG For each ei  E { if(number of elements in SEei == 0){ ei is classified into LCG; }else{ ei is classified into PG; } }

Methods (5): 

Methods (5) Classification rules Rule 2 Classify multiple sets of LCG p = 0; For each ei  LCG0 { Flag=0; If (p>0) { For q=1 to p If (complexType(ei) = complexType(element in LCGq) { ei is classified into LCGq; Flag=1; } } If (Flag==0) { For each ej  LCG0 if(complexType(ei) = complexType(ej) { p=p+1; ei and ej are classified into a new group of LCGp; } } }

Methods (6): 

Methods (6) Classification rules Rule 3 Separate elements in PG into two groups: LPG and ULPG For each ei  PG { if(SEei  LCG) { ei is classified into LPG; }else{ ei is classified into ULPG; } }

Methods: 

Methods Classification rules Rule 4 Classify multiple sets of LPG p = 0; For each ei  LPG0 { Flag=0; If (p>0) { For q=1 to p If (complexType(ei) = complexType(element in LPGq) { ei is classified into LPGq; Flag=1; } } If (Flag==0) { For each ej  LPG0 if(complexType(ei) = complexType(ej) { p=p+1; ei and ej are classified into a new group of LPGp; } } }

Result (1): 

Result (1) Database design by the proposed decision tree

Result (2): 

Result (2) Database space complexity Time complexity

Result (3): 

Result (3) Reconstructing the XML Document

Conclusions: 

Conclusions Proposed approach Mine elements with structural similarity from XML Schema for biological information Experimental result Mining structural similarity of object model is proper to microarray data and more efficient than previous approaches Future work Plan to extend current classification rules to root, LCG, LPG, ULPG respectively