ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Strategies for community-sourced biocuration in bioinformatics: a case study on MIBiG 4.0.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rethinking Nature's Pharmacy: AI Era and Natural Product Drug Discovery.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Biocuration is essential to transform molecular sequence data into standardized, machine-readable resources. Such curated datasets enable comparative analysis, predictive modeling, and data integration across bioinformatics platforms. While professional biocuration is resource-intensive and usually limited to institutional settings, community-driven approaches can mobilize large-scale annotation of specialized datasets and are more resilient to disruptions in scientific funding. Here, we present a model for community-powered curation applied to the Minimum Information about a Biosynthetic Gene Cluster (MIBiG) repository. Through a framework of workflows for metadata capture, annotation validation, and contributor coordination, the MIBiG 4.0 initiative recruited 267 scientists across 178 institutions from 33 countries, volunteering an estimated 4000 h of work. These efforts expanded the MIBiG repository by 22% and enhanced its usability in downstream molecular data analyses in comparative genomic analyses, natural product discovery, and machine learning applications. We provide strategies and actionable lessons for adopting this model, supporting the sustainability of curated bioinformatics resources central to nucleic acid research and related fields.
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.