ReviewNature ecology & evolution2024
Best practices for genetic and genomic data archiving.
Review in Nature ecology & evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing macrogenomics to study changing marine ecosystems under global climate change.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2026Review
- A practical framework for identifying genetic subpopulations and ESUs: Insights for IUCN assessments and broader management.Bioscience · 2026Article
- Using herbarium collections to study genetic responses to global change.The New phytologist · 2026Review
- CartograPlant: bridging genomic, phenotypic, and environmental data to advance plant resilience and eco-evolutionary insight.Genetics · 2026Article
- Molecular Passports for Ex Situ Seed Donors: Enhanced Genetic Monitoring for Plant Conservation.Molecular ecology · 2026Review
- HVRLocator: a computationally efficient tool for identifying hypervariable regions in large 16S rRNA datasets.GigaScience · 2026Article
- DOO: integrated multi-omics resources for deep ocean organisms.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Biodiversity Genomics Research Practices Require Harmonising to Meet Stakeholder Needs in Conservation.Molecular ecology · 2025Review
- Empowering Regional Conservation: Genetic Diversity Assessments as a Tool for Eelgrass Management.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- A molecular specimen bank for contemporary and future study captures landscape-scale biodiversity baselines before Klamath River dam removal.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A minimum data standard for wildlife disease research and surveillance.Scientific data · 2025Article
- GenDivRange: A global dataset of geo-referenced population genetic diversity across species ranges.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Overture: an open-source genomics data platform.GigaScience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic and genomic data are collected for a vast array of scientific and applied purposes. Despite mandates for public archiving, data are typically used only by the generating authors. The reuse of genetic and genomic datasets remains uncommon because it is difficult, if not impossible, due to non-standard archiving practices and lack of contextual metadata. But as the new field of macrogenetics is demonstrating, if genetic data and their metadata were more accessible and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) compliant, they could be reused for many additional purposes. We discuss the main challenges with existing genetic and genomic data archives, and suggest best practices for archiving genetic and genomic data. Recognizing that this is a longstanding issue due to little formal data management training within the fields of ecology and evolution, we highlight steps that research institutions and publishers could take to improve data archiving.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38789640What 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.