ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2020
Building a pipeline to solicit expert knowledge from the community to aid gene summary curation.
Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- FuncFetch: an LLM-assisted workflow enables mining thousands of enzyme-substrate interactions from published manuscripts.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2021.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- Community curation in PomBase: enabling fission yeast experts to provide detailed, standardized, sharable annotation from research publications.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Review
- Automated generation of gene summaries at the Alliance of Genome Resources.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Brief summaries describing the function of each gene's product(s) are of great value to the research community, especially when interpreting genome-wide studies that reveal changes to hundreds of genes. However, manually writing such summaries, even for a single species, is a daunting task; for example, the Drosophila melanogaster genome contains almost 14 000 protein-coding genes. One solution is to use computational methods to generate summaries, but this often fails to capture the key functions or express them eloquently. Here, we describe how we solicited help from the research community to generate manually written summaries of D. melanogaster gene function. Based on the data within the FlyBase database, we developed a computational pipeline to identify researchers who have worked extensively on each gene. We e-mailed these researchers to ask them to draft a brief summary of the main function(s) of the gene's product, which we edited for consistency to produce a 'gene snapshot'. This approach yielded 1800 gene snapshot submissions within a 3-month period. We discuss the general utility of this strategy for other databases that capture data from the research literature. Database URL: https://flybase.org/.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.