Activation of naïve B lymphocytes by extracellular ligands, e.g. antigen, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and CD40 ligand, induces a combination of common and ligand-specific phenotypic changes through complex signal transduction pathways. For example, although all three of these ligands induce proliferation, only stimulation through the B cell antigen receptor (BCR) induces apoptosis in resting splenic B cells. In order to define the common and unique biological responses to ligand stimulation, we compared the gene expression changes induced in normal primary B cells by a panel of ligands using cDNA microarrays and a statistical approach, CLASSIFI (Cluster Assignment for Biological Inference), which identifies significant co-clustering of genes with similar Gene Ontology annotation.

The genes that produce antibodies and the immune receptors expressed on lymphocytes are not germline encoded; rather, they are somatically generated in each developing lymphocyte by a process called V(D)J recombination, which assembles specific, independent gene segments into mature composite genes. The full set of composite genes in an individual at a single point in time is referred to as the immune repertoire. V(D)J recombination is the distinguishing feature of adaptive immunity and enables effective immune responses against an essentially infinite array of antigens. Characterization of immune repertoires is critical in both basic research and clinical contexts. Recent technological advances in repertoire profiling via high-throughput sequencing have resulted in an explosion of research activity in the field. This has been accompanied by a proliferation of software tools for analysis of repertoire sequencing data. Despite the widespread use of immune repertoire profiling and analysis software, there is currently no standardized format for output files from V(D)J analysis. Researchers utilize software such as IgBLAST and IMGT/High V-QUEST to perform V(D)J analysis and infer the structure of germline rearrangements. However, each of these software tools produces results in a different file format, and can annotate the same result using different labels. These differences make it challenging for users to perform additional downstream analyses.

Recent increases in the volume and diversity of life science data and information and an increasing emphasis on data sharing and interoperability have resulted in the creation of a large number of biological ontologies, including the Cell Ontology (CL), designed to provide a standardized representation of cell types for data annotation. Ontologies have been shown to have significant benefits for computational analyses of large data sets and for automated reasoning applications, leading to organized attempts to improve the structure and formal rigor of ontologies to better support computation. Currently, the CL employs multiple is_a relations, defining cell types in terms of histological, functional, and lineage properties, and the majority of definitions are written with sufficient generality to hold across multiple species. This approach limits the CL's utility for computation and for cross-species data integration.

A fundamental characteristic of multicellular organisms is the specialization of functional cell types through the process of differentiation. These specialized cell types not only characterize the normal functioning of different organs and tissues, they can also be used as cellular biomarkers of a variety of different disease states and therapeutic/vaccine responses. In order to serve as a reference for cell type representation, the Cell Ontology has been developed to provide a standard nomenclature of defined cell types for comparative analysis and biomarker discovery. Historically, these cell types have been defined based on unique cellular shapes and structures, anatomic locations, and marker protein expression. However, we are now experiencing a revolution in cellular characterization resulting from the application of new high-throughput, high-content cytometry and sequencing technologies. The resulting explosion in the number of distinct cell types being identified is challenging the current paradigm for cell type definition in the Cell Ontology.