The Karyotype Ontology: a computational representation
for human cytogenetic patterns
Jennifer D. Warrender and Phillip Lord∗

arXiv:1305.3758v1 [] 16 May 2013

School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

ABSTRACT
The karyotype ontology describes the human chromosome
complement as determined cytogenetically, and is designed as an
initial step toward the goal of replacing the current system which is
based on semantically meaningful strings. This ontology uses a novel,
semi-programmatic methodology based around the tawny library to
construct many classes rapidly. Here, we describe our use case,
methodology and the event-based approach that we use to represent
karyotypes.
The ontology is available at http://www.purl.org/ontolink/
karyotype/. The clojure code is available at http://code.
google.com/p/karyotype-clj/.

complement of a human, as determined cytogenetically by the
banding patterns which are revealed after staining and fixation of
metaphase cells. The ISCN specification has a long history. Initially,
it was developed to address the need for an explicit nomenclature
“to enable communication between workers in the field”. The
early versions date from around 1960, when the emphasis was
on human-to-human communication, and for small numbers of
karyotypes.
ISCN strings represents a number of key concepts:
• The autosomal chromosomes are represented by a number 1 to
22.
• The sex chromosomes are represented by X or Y.

1

INTRODUCTION

A karyotype describes the chromosome complement of the
individual. It can be easily assayed cytogenetically and, therefore,
has been widely used as a mechanism for understanding the
underlying genetic complement of cells and organisms. It remains
of vital diagnostic importance, as well as a key tool for a large
research community. Human karyotypes are normally represented
using a string, as defined by the International System for human
Cytogenetic Nomenclature 2009 (ISCN2009) (Shaffer et al., 2009)
— here we call these ISCN strings. Unlike similar string-based
representations such as InCHI (McNaught, 2006), ISCN strings
lack a formal interpretation, and do not have good computational
properties. For example, they cannot be represented in ASCII as
they include meaningful underlining. Even the ISCN specification
has no electronic representation and is not searchable.
In this paper, we describe our work in developing an ontological
representation for karyotypes. Currently, karyotypes have only
been represented as experimental entities, or results of medical
procedures. The purpose of our ontology is to provide a strong
computational and formal interpretation for a karyotype. This will
enable semantic (and syntactic) checking of karyotypic information
at the point of generation; it will allow the development of a
knowledge base of karyotypes which is open to rich querying, and
finally a web-capable interchange format as many different groups
around the world generate this information.

2

WHAT IS AN ISCN STRING

whom
correspondence
phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk

should

• Bands at different resolutions are represented numerically such
as 1p11.1.
• Changes from the base karyotypes are represented: del
represents a deletion, add represents additional material.
In addition to these concepts, there are many more that can be
represented in an extended karyotype: these include chromosomal
groups, mosaicism, ploidy level and so forth. The full specification,
describes many parts of human cytogenetics, including both the
biology and the experimental techniques used. As would be
expected for a specification with a long history, not all parts are
regularly used.
Banding Patterns used to describe chromosome locations are
defined cytogenetically by the appearance of the chromosome,
during a part of division, following staining with a dye; this staining
process is normally lethal to the cell. The original banding pattern
described in the Paris Conference 1971 report, represented the
results of three whole chromosome banding techniques: Quinacrine(Q-), Giemsa- (G-), and Reverse-banding (R-).
The main components of stained chromosomes are:
• A band is a part of the chromosome that is distinguishable
from its adjacent segments, appearing darker or lighter. Bands
proximal to the centromere are labelled as 1, then 2 and so on.

ISCN defines a string format, initially designed for writing and
printing, which provides a representation of the chromosome
∗ To

• Chromosomal structural components are represented: The long
and short arm are represented by q and p; centromeres are
represented by cen or more specifically, p10 for the part of
the centromere facing the short arm or q10 for part facing the
long arm; and telomeres are represented by ter.

be

• A region is an area of a chromosome lying between two
landmarks. Regions adjacent to the centromere are labelled as
1 in each arm, then 2 and so on.

addressed:

1

Jennifer D. Warrender and Phillip Lord4

• A landmark is a consistent and distinct morphological
feature of a chromosome. They are used as a delimiters for
regions.
Bands are represented numerically such that bands are numbered
from the centromere outward. The band name is a combination of:
the chromosome number, the arm symbol, the region number, and
the band number within that region. For example, the band 1q42
is found on the long arm of chromosome 1 and is the second band,
proximal to the centromere in region 4. Broadly speaking there is a
correlation between the cytogenetic bands and the underlying DNA
sequence of the chromosome; however, the very different scales
(1q42 is 12.4Mb long) of these two measurements means that this
relationships is approximate.
Cytogenetic banding also comes at several resolutions: highresolution banding involves the staining of chromosomes during
prophase, prometaphase, or interphase when the chromosomes
are less condensed and spread over a large area; low-resolution
uses the highly-condensed metaphase chromosome. The level of
resolution is determined by the number of bands seen in a haploid
set and ranges approximately from 300 to 850. High-resolution
banding techniques result in existing bands being subdivided into
sub-bands. Whenever a band is subdivided, a decimal place is
placed after the original band number, and the sub-band number is
appended to the band name with proximal sub-bands bring labelled
1, then 2 and so on. For example, the sub-bands of band 1q42 will
be: 1q42.1, 1q42.2, and 1q42.3, such that sub-band 1q42.1
is more proximal to the centromere. However when a sub-band is
subdivided, then no additional decimal is added. For example, the
sub-bands of sub-band 1q42.1 are: 1q42.11, 1q42.12, and
1q42.13.
Typical queries that we might wish to make of a collection of
karyotypes include:

“portions of reality”; for instance, a chromosome in a live cell
cannot meaningfully be said to have bands. These distinctions can
be represented ontologically, however the result is a ontology with
many duplicated hierarchies: chromosome 1, stained chromosome
1, and the visualisation of chromosome 1.
As these distinctions are not required for our application, we
have instead followed a pragmatic approach (Lord and Stevens,
2010). We have developed a lightweight ontology with specific
computational goals. Our desire for computational support and
inferencing, as well as a web-capable interchange format, has lead
us to adopt OWL2 as our representation format.
While avoiding a realist approach has reduced some duplication,
karyotype ontology still requires a considerable number of highly
similar concepts, which is intrinsic to the problem domain.
Trivially, for instance, the human karyotype requires 24 individual
chromosome concepts, with similar logical and textual definitions.
In turn, each chromosome has a complex band pattern (over
850 bands in total), including band intervals for use at different
resolutions. Developing this type of ontology would be complex,
time consuming and difficult to maintain using conventional tools.
Therefore, we developed the tawny library, which allows fully
programmatic development of OWL ontologies (Lord, 2013). This
library allows expansion of arbitrary patterns; this is similar to the
capabilities of OPPL(Egana Aranguren et al., 2009), populous (Jupp
et al., 2010) or safe macros (Mungall et al., 2010). However, it
additionally provides us with the ability to define unit tests to
provide computationally checkable expressions of the requirements
for inferencing, a semi-literate programming environment, and
the ability to make arbitrary syntactic extensions. The syntax is
modelled after and highly similar to Manchester syntax, therefore
it is presented here without further explanation; a fuller description
is provided in the tawny documentation2 .
The basic structure of our ontology is shown in Figure 1.

• Which karyotypes have abnormalities in a given chromosome?
• Which karyotypes increase the copy number of a given band?
• Which karyotypes affects a given band in any way?
Currently, these are hard to answer computationally because of the
complexity of the ISCN strings, as well as intrinsic complexity of
the biology. Our karyotype ontology aims to address the former, and
contain the latter.

3

OUR METHODOLOGY

For the karyotype ontology, we have a very specific requirement
which is to enable machine interpretation of the knowledge that
is currently represented in ISCN strings. One of the implications
of this is that our knowledge capture is extremely contained;
essentially all the knowledge we require is present in the ISCN2009
specification1 . Our task is to formalise and represent this.
Our initial experiments with a realist ontology showed a number
of difficulties; the distinction between a chromosome (as a piece
of DNA and protein), the experimental artefact (following staining)
and the visualisation of the experimental artefact are all different

Fig. 1. The abstract structure of the karyotype ontology.

While ISCN2009 contains most of the knowledge we need, it is
informally represented; it sometimes lacks the clarity and contains
contradictions; trivially, for instance, Group G is described as
having satellites (page 7), while Chromosome Y (a member of
Group G) is described as having no satellites. A similar confusion
lies over the instance/type distinction. So, while for an individual

1

During the course of the work described here, ISCN2013 was released (in
2012!). We have not updated for this version yet.

2

2

https://github.com/phillord/tawny-owl

• Insertion: Band insertion between chromosomes. Specialised
with DirectInsertion or InverseInsertion.

organism or cell line all (normal) Chromosome 21s have (visible)
satellites, an individual chromosome, in an individual cell may
not3 . Similarly small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMCs)
cannot be fully represented in ISCN2009 (Liehr, 2009). This means
that an ontological representation of the ISCN2009 specification
cannot therefore be a completely faithful representation.

• Inversion: Band inversion, both paracentric and pericentric.
• Quadruplication: Band quadruplication.
• Translocation: Band translocation between chromosomes.
• Triplication: Band triplication.

4

REPRESENTING ABNORMALITIES

Our initial experiments attempt to represent karyotypes as a rich
partonomy, using the concepts described in the previous section. For
example, the normal male karyotype 46,XY would be described
as having 46 chromosomes of the appropriate types. One problem
with this approach is that the definition of any karyotype is relatively
large; while tawny enables the generation of this form of concept, it
cannot reduce the complexity for reasoners; so this form of ontology
is not likely to scale well. Further, a simple partonomy is not a
rich enough representation, as it cannot represent simple inversions
which contain all the same parts, but not necessarily in the right
order. While it is possible to represent order in OWL (Drummond
et al., 2006), this would add more complexity and scaling issues.
Further, there are some strong edge cases that are not complex,
but impossible to represent as a partonomy; for example, the
karyotype 45,X,-Y describes the chromosomes of a cell line,
isolated from a normal male, which has lost its Y chromosome. This
is a different karyotype but is partonomically indistinguishable from
45,X, a phenotypically female individual with Turners syndrome.
Therefore we represented karyotypes using events: a karyotype is
described as a set of changes from a base or normal karyotype.
For example, 45,X,-Y is described as a 46,XY male, with a
deletion event of Y, while 45,X female is described as a 46,XN,
with a deletion event of a sex chromosome (see Listing1): in this
case N represents an unknown autosome. OWL can represent partial
knowledge straight-forwardly.
(defclass k45_X
:label "The 45,X karyotype"
:subclass ISCNExampleKaryotype
(owlsome derivedFrom k46_XN)
(deletion 1 HumanSexChromosome))
Listing 1. A basic class definition

In total there are 13 events that represent the following key
concepts:
• Addition: Chromosome gain or band addition.
• Deletion: Chromosome loss or band deletion, including
terminal deletion with break (:) and interstitial deletion with
breakage and reunion (::).
• Duplication: Band duplication. Specialised with
DirectDuplication or InverseDuplication.
• Fisson: Centric fission.
3

As well as variation at a genetic level in even a clonal population, the
cytogenetic definition of satellite is a staining region. So even for two
genetically identical chromosomes, one may show a satellite, and another
may not.

These concepts are supported by a number of properties created
for the purpose, such as isBandOf.
The simplest representation in our ontology shares some
limitations with the ISCN “short system” – a usable subset of ISCN,
which is more generally used. For example, with both triplication
or quadruplication events, we do not represent the orientation of
all the repeats. It would be possible to differentiate these as two
direct duplications, or one direct and one inverted duplication
(for triplication); however, again it is useful to represent partial
information; for many existing ISCN strings which use the short
system, this knowledge is not available.

5

DEFINING SEX

One interesting outcome of both our representation and normal
custom within cytology is that the definition of the sex of
a karyotype is quite different from what might be expected.
Intuitively, male would be defined as a karyotype with a Y
chromosome5 , while female would be defined as a karyotype
without. However, this intuitive definition is not correct. For
example, the previously described 45X,-Y has no chromosome
Y and yet would generally be considered to be a male karyotype,
since the organism from which the cell line originated was male.
Our definitions of male and female, therefore, consider the
“history” of the karyotype. Female is defined as derived from
46,XX (Listing2), Male from 46,XY (Listing3). This definition
also copes with Turner’s syndrome which is not defined as
either male or female, nor describe sex for haploid karyotypes:
these can contain a Y chromosome (or not), but sex is not
meaningful for these karyotypes. Karyotypes which are definitional
for syndromes such as Turner’s or being male, are categorised under
NamedKaryotype.
(defclass FemaleKaryotype
:equivalent
(owlor k46_XX
(owlsome derivedFrom k46_XX)))
Listing 2. Definition of Female Karyotype

(defclass MaleKaryotype
:equivalent
(owlor k46_XY
(owlsome derivedFrom k46_XY)))
Listing 3. Definition of Male Karyotype

While this is ontologically correct, it does remove some
inferencing power that might reasonably be expected; the karyotype
45,X is effectively stated to be female, as it is not formally possible
5

We ignore Y chromosome translocations for simplicity

3

Jennifer D. Warrender and Phillip Lord7

to determine the sex from the components of a karyotype; for future
work, we may be able to address this, by describing the origin of the
karyotype (45,X,-Y is only valid as the karyotype of a cell line).

6

ASSESSMENT

As well as providing a specification, we are fortunate that ISCN2009
provides many examples; we are using these examples as an initial
evaluation for our ontology, to determine whether the ontology is
expressive enough to represent these exemplar karyotypes.
We wished this to be related to the ISCN string as, in most cases,
there is no other more humanly readable name. In order to represent
a karyotype in tawny a name is needed which is “safe” both as a
URL and in Clojure, the language used to implement tawny, and,
pragmatically, in Manchester syntax also6 .
• All karyotypes start with a “k” — Clojure symbols cannot start
with numbers
• Replaced ; character with — comment in Clojure
• Replaced ( and ) characters with ! — list delimiter in Clojure
• Replaced , character with — separator in Manchester syntax
Currently, we have represented 71 karyotypes in our karyotype
ontology. During this process, we have also discovered two
difficulties with the existing ISCN2009 specification; in both cases
a simple and intuitive correction is possible. These are:
• The lack of a band Xq12 in figures showing chromosome
bands (page 31); the figures are the only list of all chromosome
bands in ISCN2009.
• The absence of a band Yq11.2 in the 300 band resolution
(11.21, 11.22, 11.23 do exist on page 31) while this band
is used in several exemplars (for example on page 78). This
band does exist in ISCN2005 – the previous specification.
Taken together, these 71 karyotypes use all of the distinctions
necessary to answer questions given in Section 2.

7

DISCUSSION

The development of a karyotype ontology is potentially valuable
for cytogenetics, as the current ISCN specification is not
computationally amenable, reducing the value of collections of
karyotypes as they are hard to query, check and maintain. The
work described here presents an initial step towards this goal.
The process of producing this ontology is already of use; we
have discovered some errors or inconsistencies within ISCN which
prevent its direct interpretation computationally; we expect to find
more as we continue.
We have found the use of an ontology to be an appropriate
mechanism; the knowledge that needs to be represented is complex,
and overlapping. Cytogenetic data also requires the representation
of partial knowledge, such as locations that are only known to a
given resolution. The open world assumption of OWL copes well
6

It is possible to dissociate these two with tawny, but that did not seem
useful in this case

4

with this situation. Cytogenetics databases are also relatively small
(100,000’s rather than millions or billions), sizes to which OWL
should scale.
Existing tools for ontology development are, however, rather
limited in their support for building this form of ontology; it is to
address this need that we have developed tawny. This has proven
to be highly useful; for example, the current karyotype ontology
consists of 1466 classes, of which 1293 are used to represent the
chromosomes and their bands at different resolutions. All of these
classes have been generated from simpler data structures in Clojure.
Additionally, the arbitrary expressiveness of tawny has allowed us
to add syntax specific for the karyotype; many definitions in our
ontology follow patterns. Using tawny these can be encoded as
Clojure functions, such as that shown in and used in Listing4.
(defn inversion
[n band1 band2]
(exactly n hasEvent
(owland Inversion
(owlsome hasBreakPoint
band1 band2))))
(e/inversion 1 h/Hu2Bandp21 h/Hu2Bandq31)
Listing 4. A function used to define inverse events

In addition to the convenience, this also aids significantly in
maintainability, as it is possible to change definitions for all classes
that use this function. In time, we expect to extend this work to
present an end-user syntax and parser, probably built directly using
Clojure. Through the use of tawny we aim to build an end-to-end
solution for the computational encoding of karyotypes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by Newcastle University.

REFERENCES
Drummond, N., Rector, A., Stevens, R., Moulton, G., Horridge, M., Wang, H. H.,
and Seidenberg, J. (2006). Putting OWL in order: Patterns for sequences in OWL.
Concrete, pages 1–10.
Egana Aranguren, M., Stevens, R., and Antezana, E. (2009). Transforming
the axiomisation of ontologies: The ontology pre-processor language. Nature
Precedings.
Jupp, S., Horridge, M., Iannone, L., Klein, J., Owen, S., Schanstra, J., Stevens, R.,
and Wolstencroft, K. (2010). Populous: A tool for populating ontology templates.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Semantic Web Applications and
Tools for the Life Sciences BerlinGermany December 810 2010.
Liehr, T. (2009). Small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMCs): a spotlight
on some nomenclature problems. Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry,
57(11), 991–993.
Lord, P. (2013). The Semantic Web takes Wing: Programming Ontologies with TawnyOWL. http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0213.
Lord, P. and Stevens, R. (2010). Adding a little reality to building ontologies for
biology. PLoS One.
McNaught, A. D. (2006). The IUPAC International Chemical Identifier (InChI).
Chemistry International, 2006(September 18).
Mungall, C., Ruttenberg, A., and Osumi-Sutherland, D. (2010). Taking shortcuts with
OWL using safe macros. Nature Preceedings.
Shaffer, L., on Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature, I. S. C., Slovak, M., and
Campbell, L. (2009). ISCN 2009: An International System for Human Cytogenetic
Nomenclature (2009). Karger.

