Chancellery Research - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3
-
ItemBenchmarks for measurement of duplicate detection methods in nucleotide databases(OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2023-12-18)UNLABELLED: Duplication of information in databases is a major data quality challenge. The presence of duplicates, implying either redundancy or inconsistency, can have a range of impacts on the quality of analyses that use the data. To provide a sound basis for research on this issue in databases of nucleotide sequences, we have developed new, large-scale validated collections of duplicates, which can be used to test the effectiveness of duplicate detection methods. Previous collections were either designed primarily to test efficiency, or contained only a limited number of duplicates of limited kinds. To date, duplicate detection methods have been evaluated on separate, inconsistent benchmarks, leading to results that cannot be compared and, due to limitations of the benchmarks, of questionable generality. In this study, we present three nucleotide sequence database benchmarks, based on information drawn from a range of resources, including information derived from mapping to two data sections within the UniProt Knowledgebase (UniProtKB), UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot and UniProtKB/TrEMBL. Each benchmark has distinct characteristics. We quantify these characteristics and argue for their complementary value in evaluation. The benchmarks collectively contain a vast number of validated biological duplicates; the largest has nearly half a billion duplicate pairs (although this is probably only a tiny fraction of the total that is present). They are also the first benchmarks targeting the primary nucleotide databases. The records include the 21 most heavily studied organisms in molecular biology research. Our quantitative analysis shows that duplicates in the different benchmarks, and in different organisms, have different characteristics. It is thus unreliable to evaluate duplicate detection methods against any single benchmark. For example, the benchmark derived from UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot mappings identifies more diverse types of duplicates, showing the importance of expert curation, but is limited to coding sequences. Overall, these benchmarks form a resource that we believe will be of great value for development and evaluation of the duplicate detection or record linkage methods that are required to help maintain these essential resources. DATABASE URL: : https://bitbucket.org/biodbqual/benchmarks.
-
ItemDuplicates, redundancies and inconsistencies in the primary nucleotide databases: a descriptive study(OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2017-01-10)GenBank, the EMBL European Nucleotide Archive and the DNA DataBank of Japan, known collectively as the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration or INSDC, are the three most significant nucleotide sequence databases. Their records are derived from laboratory work undertaken by different individuals, by different teams, with a range of technologies and assumptions and over a period of decades. As a consequence, they contain a great many duplicates, redundancies and inconsistencies, but neither the prevalence nor the characteristics of various types of duplicates have been rigorously assessed. Existing duplicate detection methods in bioinformatics only address specific duplicate types, with inconsistent assumptions; and the impact of duplicates in bioinformatics databases has not been carefully assessed, making it difficult to judge the value of such methods. Our goal is to assess the scale, kinds and impact of duplicates in bioinformatics databases, through a retrospective analysis of merged groups in INSDC databases. Our outcomes are threefold: (1) We analyse a benchmark dataset consisting of duplicates manually identified in INSDC-a dataset of 67 888 merged groups with 111 823 duplicate pairs across 21 organisms from INSDC databases - in terms of the prevalence, types and impacts of duplicates. (2) We categorize duplicates at both sequence and annotation level, with supporting quantitative statistics, showing that different organisms have different prevalence of distinct kinds of duplicate. (3) We show that the presence of duplicates has practical impact via a simple case study on duplicates, in terms of GC content and melting temperature. We demonstrate that duplicates not only introduce redundancy, but can lead to inconsistent results for certain tasks. Our findings lead to a better understanding of the problem of duplication in biological databases.Database URL: the merged records are available at https://cloudstor.aarnet.edu.au/plus/index.php/s/Xef2fvsebBEAv9w.
-
ItemQuality Matters: Biocuration Experts on the Impact of Duplication and Other Data Quality Issues in Biological Databases.(Elsevier, 2020-04)Biological databases represent an extraordinary collective volume of work. Diligently built up over decades and comprising many millions of contributions from the biomedical research community, biological databases provide worldwide access to a massive number of records (also known as entries) [1]. Starting from individual laboratories, genomes are sequenced, assembled, annotated, and ultimately submitted to primary nucleotide databases such as GenBank [2], European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) [3], and DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ) [4] (collectively known as the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration, INSDC). Protein records, which are the translations of these nucleotide records, are deposited into central protein databases such as the UniProt KnowledgeBase (UniProtKB) [5] and the Protein Data Bank (PDB) [6]. Sequence records are further accumulated into different databases for more specialized purposes: RFam [7] and PFam [8] for RNA and protein families, respectively; DictyBase [9] and PomBase [10] for model organisms; as well as ArrayExpress [11] and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) [12] for gene expression profiles. These databases are selected as examples; the list is not intended to be exhaustive. However, they are representative of biological databases that have been named in the “golden set” of the 24th Nucleic Acids Research database issue (in 2016). The introduction of that issue highlights the databases that “consistently served as authoritative, comprehensive, and convenient data resources widely used by the entire community and offer some lessons on what makes a successful database” [13]. In addition, the associated information about sequences is also propagated into non-sequence databases, such as PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) for scientific literature or Gene Ontology (GO) [14] for function annotations. These databases in turn benefit individual studies, many of which use these publicly available records as the basis for their own research.