ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2026
Genomic solutions to metadata challenges: a case study on the 1000 Bull Genomes Project.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvancements in sequencing technologies have led to an unprecedented availability of whole-genome sequencing data in all life sciences, including livestock research. However, this raises concerns regarding the accuracy of the associated metadata, particularly information on an individual's subspecies or breed.
resultsIn this analysis, the 1000 Bull Genomes project was used as an example for a large-scale dataset with structured metadata. We applied a framework combining a query of the NCBI BioSamples database with principal component analysis, admixture analysis, and distance metrics based on the genomic information to assess metadata integrity. The main decrease in metadata quality results from missing breed assignments for 6% (n= 360) of the samples. Moreover, we identified 3% (n= 183) subspecies misassignments and 26 % (n= 1635) of the individuals are involved in the correction of breed assignments. In total, 603 animals receive metadata corrections of the breed or subspecies.
conclusionOur study highlights the necessity of rigorous metadata assessments, even when utilizing well-established datasets. Furthermore, we emphasize the importance of providing comprehensive and accurate metadata when depositing genomic information in public databases to ensure the integrity and utility of such datasets.
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.