Dataset Information

DictyBase and the Dicty Stock Center (version 2.0) - a progress report.

ABSTRACT: After serving the Dictyostelium community for many years, the first version of dictyBase (Chisholm et al., 2006; Fey et al., 2006) was in need of a decisive update. The original dictyBase software was not adaptable to more current demands such as handling the import of large-scale data from recently sequenced genomes, keeping up with changes in the Gene Ontology (GO), or handling the automatic annotation of over 20,000 new strains. Therefore, we have embarked on a complete overhaul of dictyBase. The new infrastructure will allow the introduction of new data, such as more expressive GO annotations and Dictyostelium disease orthologs. A modern user interface aims to streamline usage of the database including orders from the Dicty Stock Center (DSC). New displays will allow novel views including the combination of data in two new tools. With the underlying software infrastructure now in place, dictyBase software engineers and curators are currently adding the user interfaces, new tools and content pages for the evolving version 2.0 of dictyBase. This review highlights the emerging status of the new dictyBase, updated pages and annotations that will soon be available in the new environment, an overview of our annotation procedures, and plans to involve the community in curation efforts.

SUBMITTER: Fey P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7409682 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

dictyBase and the Dicty Stock Center (version 2.0) - a progress report.

Fey Petra P Dodson Robert J RJ Basu Siddhartha S Hartline Eric C EC Chisholm Rex L RL

The International journal of developmental biology 20190101 8-9-10

After serving the Dictyostelium community for many years, the first version of dictyBase (Chisholm et al., 2006; Fey et al., 2006) was in need of a decisive update. The original dictyBase software was not adaptable to more current demands such as handling the import of large-scale data from recently sequenced genomes, keeping up with changes in the Gene Ontology (GO), or handling the automatic annotation of over 20,000 new strains. Therefore, we have embarked on a complete overhaul of dictyBase. ...[more]

PMID: 31840793

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposePrevious studies of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) interview version suggested a second-order model, with a general disability factor and six factors on a lower level. The goal of this study is to investigate if we can find support for a similar higher-order factor structure of the 36-item self-report version of the WHODAS 2.0 in a Dutch psychiatric outpatient sample. We aim to give special attention to the differences between the non-working group sample and the working group sample. Additionally, we intend to provide preliminary norms for clinical interpretation of the WHODAS 2.0 scores in psychiatric settings.MethodsPatients seeking specialized ambulatory treatment, primarily for depressive or anxiety symptoms, completed the WHODAS 2.0 as part of the initial interview. The total sample consisted of 770 patients with a mean age of 37.5 years (SD = 13.3) of whom 280 were males and 490 were females. Several factorial compositions (i.e., one unidimensional model and two second-order models) were modeled using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Descriptive statistics, model-fit statistics, reliability of the (sub)scales, and preliminary norms for interpreting test scores are reported.ResultsFor the non-working group, the second-order model with a general disability factor and six factors on a lower level, provided an adequate fit. Whereas, for the working group, the second-order model with a general disability factor and seven factors on a lower level seemed more appropriate. The WHODAS 2.0 36-item self-report form showed adequate levels of reliability. Percentile ranks and normalized T-scores are provided to aid clinical evaluations.ConclusionOur results lend support for a factorial structure of the WHODAS 2.0 36-item self-report version that is comparable to the interview version. While we conjecture that a seven-factor solution might give a better reflection of item content and item variance, further research is needed to assess the clinical relevance of such a model. At this point, we recommend using the second-order structure with six factors that matches past findings of the interview form.

Dataset Information

DictyBase and the Dicty Stock Center (version 2.0) - a progress report.

Publications

dictyBase and the Dicty Stock Center (version 2.0) - a progress report.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets