Dataset Information

One stop shop for everything Dictyostelium: dictyBase and the Dicty Stock Center in 2012.

ABSTRACT: dictyBase (http://dictybase.org), the model organism database for Dictyostelium discoideum, includes the complete genome sequence and expression data for this organism. Relevant literature is integrated into the database, and gene models and functional annotation are manually curated from experimental results and comparative multigenome analyses. dictyBase has recently expanded to include the genome sequences of three additional Dictyostelids and has added new software tools to facilitate multigenome comparisons. The Dicty Stock Center, a strain and plasmid repository for Dictyostelium research, has relocated to Northwestern University in 2009. This allowed us integrating all Dictyostelium resources to better serve the research community. In this chapter, we will describe how to navigate the Web site and highlight some of our newer improvements.

SUBMITTER: Fey P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3762881 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

One stop shop for everything Dictyostelium: dictyBase and the Dicty Stock Center in 2012.

Fey Petra P Dodson Robert J RJ Basu Siddhartha S Chisholm Rex L RL

Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) 20130101

dictyBase (http://dictybase.org), the model organism database for Dictyostelium discoideum, includes the complete genome sequence and expression data for this organism. Relevant literature is integrated into the database, and gene models and functional annotation are manually curated from experimental results and comparative multigenome analyses. dictyBase has recently expanded to include the genome sequences of three additional Dictyostelids and has added new software tools to facilitate multig ...[more]

PMID: 23494302

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPolicymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results.MethodsTo address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing 'added value' to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages.ResultsThe taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The 'one-stop shop', called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.ConclusionsPolicymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews.

Project description:Participation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a 'One Stop' screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.Participants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed 'One Stop' cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1?years?±?15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2-59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48-53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2-33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21-0.66), p?<?0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46-3.00), p?<?0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22-2.51), p?<?0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3-39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07-0.74), p?<?0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2-24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9-9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5-7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9-88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.Identified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.

Dataset Information

One stop shop for everything Dictyostelium: dictyBase and the Dicty Stock Center in 2012.

Publications

One stop shop for everything Dictyostelium: dictyBase and the Dicty Stock Center in 2012.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets