Computing and Information Systems - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemLiterature consistency of bioinformatics sequence databases is effective for assessing record quality(OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2017-03-18)UNLABELLED: Bioinformatics sequence databases such as Genbank or UniProt contain hundreds of millions of records of genomic data. These records are derived from direct submissions from individual laboratories, as well as from bulk submissions from large-scale sequencing centres; their diversity and scale means that they suffer from a range of data quality issues including errors, discrepancies, redundancies, ambiguities, incompleteness and inconsistencies with the published literature. In this work, we seek to investigate and analyze the data quality of sequence databases from the perspective of a curator, who must detect anomalous and suspicious records. Specifically, we emphasize the detection of inconsistent records with respect to the literature. Focusing on GenBank, we propose a set of 24 quality indicators, which are based on treating a record as a query into the published literature, and then use query quality predictors. We then carry out an analysis that shows that the proposed quality indicators and the quality of the records have a mutual relationship, in which one depends on the other. We propose to represent record-literature consistency as a vector of these quality indicators. By reducing the dimensionality of this representation for visualization purposes using principal component analysis, we show that records which have been reported as inconsistent with the literature fall roughly in the same area, and therefore share similar characteristics. By manually analyzing records not previously known to be erroneous that fall in the same area than records know to be inconsistent, we show that one record out of four is inconsistent with respect to the literature. This high density of inconsistent record opens the way towards the development of automatic methods for the detection of faulty records. We conclude that literature inconsistency is a meaningful strategy for identifying suspicious records. DATABASE URL: https://github.com/rbouadjenek/DQBioinformatics.
-
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.