Dataset Information

GlycomeDB - integration of open-access carbohydrate structure databases.

ABSTRACT: Although carbohydrates are the third major class of biological macromolecules, after proteins and DNA, there is neither a comprehensive database for carbohydrate structures nor an established universal structure encoding scheme for computational purposes. Funding for further development of the Complex Carbohydrate Structure Database (CCSD or CarbBank) ceased in 1997, and since then several initiatives have developed independent databases with partially overlapping foci. For each database, different encoding schemes for residues and sequence topology were designed. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to obtain an overview of all deposited structures or to compare the contents of the various databases.We have implemented procedures which download the structures contained in the seven major databases, e.g. GLYCOSCIENCES.de, the Consortium for Functional Glycomics (CFG), the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) and the Bacterial Carbohydrate Structure Database (BCSDB). We have created a new database called GlycomeDB, containing all structures, their taxonomic annotations and references (IDs) for the original databases. More than 100000 datasets were imported, resulting in more than 33000 unique sequences now encoded in GlycomeDB using the universal format GlycoCT. Inconsistencies were found in all public databases, which were discussed and corrected in multiple feedback rounds with the responsible curators.GlycomeDB is a new, publicly available database for carbohydrate sequences with a unified, all-encompassing structure encoding format and NCBI taxonomic referencing. The database is updated weekly and can be downloaded free of charge. The JAVA application GlycoUpdateDB is also available for establishing and updating a local installation of GlycomeDB. With the advent of GlycomeDB, the distributed islands of knowledge in glycomics are now bridged to form a single resource.

SUBMITTER: Ranzinger R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2567997 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background. Open access (OA) journals allows access to research papers free of charge to the reader. Traditionally, biomedical researchers use databases like MEDLINE and EMBASE to discover new advances. However, biomedical OA journals might not fulfill such databases' criteria, hindering dissemination. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a database exclusively listing OA journals. The aim of this study was to investigate DOAJ's coverage of biomedical OA journals compared with the conventional biomedical databases. Methods. Information on all journals listed in four conventional biomedical databases (MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE and SCOPUS) and DOAJ were gathered. Journals were included if they were (1) actively publishing, (2) full OA, (3) prospectively indexed in one or more database, and (4) of biomedical subject. Impact factor and journal language were also collected. DOAJ was compared with conventional databases regarding the proportion of journals covered, along with their impact factor and publishing language. The proportion of journals with articles indexed by DOAJ was determined. Results. In total, 3,236 biomedical OA journals were included in the study. Of the included journals, 86.7% were listed in DOAJ. Combined, the conventional biomedical databases listed 75.0% of the journals; 18.7% in MEDLINE; 36.5% in PubMed Central; 51.5% in SCOPUS and 50.6% in EMBASE. Of the journals in DOAJ, 88.7% published in English and 20.6% had received impact factor for 2012 compared with 93.5% and 26.0%, respectively, for journals in the conventional biomedical databases. A subset of 51.1% and 48.5% of the journals in DOAJ had articles indexed from 2012 and 2013, respectively. Of journals exclusively listed in DOAJ, one journal had received an impact factor for 2012, and 59.6% of the journals had no content from 2013 indexed in DOAJ. Conclusions. DOAJ is the most complete registry of biomedical OA journals compared with five conventional biomedical databases. However, DOAJ only indexes articles for half of the biomedical journals listed, making it an incomplete source for biomedical research papers in general.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Biological data have traditionally been stored and made publicly available through a variety of on-line databases, whereas biological knowledge has traditionally been found in the printed literature. With journals now on-line and providing an increasing amount of open access content, often free of copyright restriction, this distinction between database and literature is blurring. To exploit this opportunity we present the integration of open access literature with the RCSB Protein Data Bank (PDB). RESULTS: BioLit provides an enhanced view of articles with markup of semantic data and links to biological databases, based on the content of the article. For example, words matching to existing biological ontologies are highlighted and database identifiers are linked to their database of origin. Among other functions, it identifies PDB IDs that are mentioned in the open access literature, by parsing the full text for all research articles in PubMed Central (PMC) and exposing the results as simple XML Web Services. Here, we integrate BioLit results with the RCSB PDB website by using these services to find PDB IDs that are mentioned in research articles and subsequently retrieving abstract, figures, and text excerpts for those articles. A new RCSB PDB literature view permits browsing through the figures and abstracts of the articles that mention a given structure. The BioLit Web Services that are providing the underlying data are publicly accessible. A client library is provided that supports querying these services (Java). CONCLUSIONS: The integration between literature and websites, as demonstrated here with the RCSB PDB, provides a broader view for how a given structure has been analyzed and used. This approach detects the mention of a PDB structure even if it is not formally cited in the paper. Other structures related through the same literature references can also be identified, possibly providing new scientific insight. To our knowledge this is the first time that database and literature have been integrated in this way and it speaks to the opportunities afforded by open and free access to both database and literature content.

Project description:Primary biodiversity data constitute observations of particular species at given points in time and space. Open-access electronic databases provide unprecedented access to these data, but their usefulness in characterizing species distributions and patterns in biodiversity depend on how complete species inventories are at a given survey location and how uniformly distributed survey locations are along dimensions of time, space, and environment. Our aim was to compare completeness and coverage among three open-access databases representing ten taxonomic groups (amphibians, birds, freshwater bivalves, crayfish, freshwater fish, fungi, insects, mammals, plants, and reptiles) in the contiguous United States. We compiled occurrence records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), and federally administered fish surveys (FFS). We aggregated occurrence records by 0.1° × 0.1° grid cells and computed three completeness metrics to classify each grid cell as well-surveyed or not. Next, we compared frequency distributions of surveyed grid cells to background environmental conditions in a GIS and performed Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests to quantify coverage through time, along two spatial gradients, and along eight environmental gradients. The three databases contributed >13.6 million reliable occurrence records distributed among >190,000 grid cells. The percent of well-surveyed grid cells was substantially lower for GBIF (5.2%) than for systematic surveys (BBS and FFS; 82.5%). Still, the large number of GBIF occurrence records produced at least 250 well-surveyed grid cells for six of nine taxonomic groups. Coverages of systematic surveys were less biased across spatial and environmental dimensions but were more biased in temporal coverage compared to GBIF data. GBIF coverages also varied among taxonomic groups, consistent with commonly recognized geographic, environmental, and institutional sampling biases. This comprehensive assessment of biodiversity data across the contiguous United States provides a prioritization scheme to fill in the gaps by contributing existing occurrence records to the public domain and planning future surveys.

Project description:BackgroundThe ability to query many independent biological databases using a common ontology-based semantic model would facilitate deeper integration and more effective utilization of these diverse and rapidly growing resources. Despite ongoing work moving toward shared data formats and linked identifiers, significant problems persist in semantic data integration in order to establish shared identity and shared meaning across heterogeneous biomedical data sources.ResultsWe present five processes for semantic data integration that, when applied collectively, solve seven key problems. These processes include making explicit the differences between biomedical concepts and database records, aggregating sets of identifiers denoting the same biomedical concepts across data sources, and using declaratively represented forward-chaining rules to take information that is variably represented in source databases and integrating it into a consistent biomedical representation. We demonstrate these processes and solutions by presenting KaBOB (the Knowledge Base Of Biomedicine), a knowledge base of semantically integrated data from 18 prominent biomedical databases using common representations grounded in Open Biomedical Ontologies. An instance of KaBOB with data about humans and seven major model organisms can be built using on the order of 500 million RDF triples. All source code for building KaBOB is available under an open-source license.ConclusionsKaBOB is an integrated knowledge base of biomedical data representationally based in prominent, actively maintained Open Biomedical Ontologies, thus enabling queries of the underlying data in terms of biomedical concepts (e.g., genes and gene products, interactions and processes) rather than features of source-specific data schemas or file formats. KaBOB resolves many of the issues that routinely plague biomedical researchers intending to work with data from multiple data sources and provides a platform for ongoing data integration and development and for formal reasoning over a wealth of integrated biomedical data.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Open access (OA) is a revolutionary way of providing access to the scholarly journal literature made possible by the Internet. The primary aim of this study was to measure the volume of scientific articles published in full immediate OA journals from 2000 to 2011, while observing longitudinal internal shifts in the structure of OA publishing concerning revenue models, publisher types and relative distribution among scientific disciplines. The secondary aim was to measure the share of OA articles of all journal articles, including articles made OA by publishers with a delay and individual author-paid OA articles in subscription journals (hybrid OA), as these subsets of OA publishing have mostly been ignored in previous studies. METHODS: Stratified random sampling of journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (n = 787) was performed. The annual publication volumes spanning 2000 to 2011 were retrieved from major publication indexes and through manual data collection. RESULTS: An estimated 340,000 articles were published by 6,713 full immediate OA journals during 2011. OA journals requiring article-processing charges have become increasingly common, publishing 166,700 articles in 2011 (49% of all OA articles). This growth is related to the growth of commercial publishers, who, despite only a marginal presence a decade ago, have grown to become key actors on the OA scene, responsible for 120,000 of the articles published in 2011. Publication volume has grown within all major scientific disciplines, however, biomedicine has seen a particularly rapid 16-fold growth between 2000 (7,400 articles) and 2011 (120,900 articles). Over the past decade, OA journal publishing has steadily increased its relative share of all scholarly journal articles by about 1% annually. Approximately 17% of the 1.66 million articles published during 2011 and indexed in the most comprehensive article-level index of scholarly articles (Scopus) are available OA through journal publishers, most articles immediately (12%) but some within 12 months of publication (5%). CONCLUSIONS: OA journal publishing is disrupting the dominant subscription-based model of scientific publishing, having rapidly grown in relative annual share of published journal articles during the last decade.

Dataset Information

GlycomeDB - integration of open-access carbohydrate structure databases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets